TUREETTIN 



ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 



TRANSLATED BY 



THE REV. JAMES Rf WILLSON, D. D. 



A NEW EDITION, 

CAREFULLY REVISED BY COLLATION WITH THE LAST EDITION OP THE 
LATIN ORIGINAL. 



Daniel ix. 26. iS pxi rrt?n m-p 

'Oc Trapedodrj Sea ra Trapa7Tro)[j,aTa r\\idv, icai Tjyepdr] 
did, tt\v 6iicaiG)(7iv -fj/xoiv. — Romans it. 25. 



NEW Y'ORK: 

BOARD OF PUBLICATION 

OF THE REFORMED PROTESTANT DUTCH CHURCH, 

61 FRANKLIN STREET. 



1859. 






c* 



A 



«^** 



^fe^ 



yt'/Fs^ 



3^ v 
T ^ 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1859, by 

Rev. THOMAS C. STRONG, 

On behalf of the Board of Publication of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church 
in North America, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the 
United States for the Southern District of New York. 



Hosford & Co., Stationers and Printers, 
67 and 59 William Street, N. Y. 



PKEFACE. 



The discussion contained in the following pages is a part 
of a much larger volume originally published in Philadel- 
phia in the year 1817, with the title: 

"A Historical Sketch of Opinions on the Atonement, 
interspersed with Biographical Notices of the leading Doc- 
tors, and Outlines of the Sections of the Church, from the 
Incarnation of Christ unto the present Time: with Transla- 
tions from Francis Turrettin on the Atonement. By James 
R. Willson, A.M." 

The volume was dedicated to the Rev. Dr. Alexander 
McLeod. Its nature is well described in the title. The 
author traced the varying progress and development of 
opinion on the atonement, from the beginning of the era 
down to his own immediate contemporaries. While scrupu- 
lously careful to represent all with impartiality, he made no 
pretence of "dealing gently with errorists." On the con- 
trary, he aimed to " speak out with boldness and candour," 
and at times even with " severity." His wdrk, extending 
over so large a field, could of course be nothing more than 
a comprehensive outline or summary of its subject. After 
subserving a useful purpose in the conflicts of the former 
part of this century, it seems to have fallen into compara- 
livc oblivion, and lias been for many years out of print. 

The In tier portion of the volume, being the translation 
which is here reproduced, contained the matter, which is 
found under ( 'Jur/stionesHL-XI'V ., in Locus Decimus Quartus 
(Do Officio Christ i Mediatorio) of the Institutio Theologize 
Blbncticjb of Francis Turrettin, with the insertion in one 
instance of a short extract from another portion of the 
Bame work. This part of Dr. Willson's work is apparently 
as much called for now as it was originally. The various 



PREFACE. 



questions relating to the atonement are still discussed with 
frequency and earnestness. The constant faith of the Church 
on the subject continues to be firmly held by the general 
body of the Reformed; but it is exposed to incessant attacks 
in every generation, generally from without, but sometimes 
from within, the pale of orthodox communions. And while 
contemporary authorship has furnished some admirable pre- 
sentations of the common faith on this important point, it is 
doubted whether any other work of the same compass pre- 
sents so clearly and forcibly the truth of God as to the 
Nature, Truth. Perfection, Matter, and Extent of the Satis- 
faction made by the blessed Saviour. The lucid arrange- 
ment of topics, compact argumentation, fairness of state- 
ment, and constant appeal to the law and the testimony, 
leave the careful reader little to desire. 

The translation as issued by Dr. Willson was iu the main 
faithful and accurate. In some cases, however, the learned 
divine, by an oversight, failed to express the exact sense of 
his author; while in many more the carelessness of the proof- 
reader did him great injustice. Tains have been taken to 
collate the vision line by line with the original, so as to 
amend any inaccuracies. Nothing i< claimed on the score 
of rhetorical finish or the niceties of verbal expression, but 
the work as now published is believed to present in simple 
and perspicuous English the exact line of thought and argu- 
ment presented by the great Genevan professor. It only 
remains to be added, that while the Board of Publication 
approves of the work as a whole, it is not to be considered 
responsible for every shade of opinion on minute points, or 
every interpretation of quoted Scripture. 

At the editor's special request, a pleasing biographical 
sketch of Dr. Willson has been furnished by a member of his 
family. That of Turrettin is a condensation of an article in 
the twentieth volume of the " Princeton Review." 



CONTENTS 



PAGE 

Biographical Sketch of Dr. Willson ix 

Biographical Sketch of Tcrrettin 1 

CHAPTER I. 

THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 

Three Opinions on the Subject 14 

Preliminary Remarks 15 

1. As to the Nature of Sin *. 15 

2. The Satisfaction required 15 

3. The Relations of God to the Sinner 17 

4. The Qualifications of the Substitute 20 

and Conditions of Substitution 22 

Arguments : ; 24 

I. God's Vindicatory Justice 25 

II. The Nature of Sin 25 

III. The Sanction of the Law 26 

IV. The Preaching of the Gospel 27 

V. The Greatness of God's Love 29 

VI. The Glory of the Divine Perfections 29 

CHAPTER II. 

THE TRUTH OF THE ATONEMENT. 

Statement of the Question 31 

Arguments: 33 

I. Christ redeemed us with the Price of his Blood 33 

II. He died in the Stead of his People 36 

ill. He bore their Sins 38 

IV. He offered Sacrifice on the Cross 44 

Three Objections considered 46 

V. II' 1 made Reconciliation with God 49 

An ' Objection considered 50 

Another " 52 

VI Tin' Nature of his Death •. 53 

VII. Th" Perfections of God 55 



vi CONTENTS. 



PAGB 

Objections answered: 56 

That the Word Satisfaction is not used in Scripture 56 

That Christ's Sufferings were Exemplary 57 

That Satisfaction and Remission are inconsistent with each 



other 



57 



That Christ makes Satisfaction to Himself 58 

That he did not suffer eternal Death 59 

That he did not suffer Despair 60 

That the Death of One cannot answer for Many 60 

That Atonemeni is opposed to Ezek. xviii. 20 62 

And that it leads to carnal Ease 63 



CHAPTER m. 



THE PERFECTION OF THE ATONEMENT. 



Statement of the Question 64 

Against Romanists 64 

Against Armiuians 67 

In Itself 68 

Arguments: 69 

I. The Dignity of Christ's Person 69 

II. The Oneness of his Offering 70 

HI. The Approval of God the Judge 70 

IV. Its Effects 72 

Romish Dogma of supplementary Satisfactions 72 

Arminiau Doctrine of a nominal Atonement 75 

Objections answered: 75 

That the Apostles suffered for the Church 76 

That Paul completed Christ's Sufferings 76 

That Sins are broken off by Repentance 77 

That Believers still suffer in this Life 78 

That they are liable to Death 81 

That Judgment begins at the House of God 81 

That Jewish Saints had to offer Sacrifices 82 

That by Mercy and Truth Iniquity is purged 82 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE MATTER OF THE ATONEMENT. 

PAGB 

Statement of the Question 85 

Preliminary Remarks 88 

1. Christ's atoning Sufferings extended through his whole Life 88 

2. They are to be distinguished as to Substance and Form. . 90 

3. His Obedience has a twofold Efficacy 91 

Socinus's Objection to this 95 

4. The Law contains both Precepts and Sanctions 96 

5. There is a threefold Subjection to the Law 96 

Arguments for the Orthodox View 99 

I. From Romans v. 9 99 

H. From Philippians ii. 8 100 

HI. From Romans viii. 3, 4 101 

TV. From Christ's doing whatever was due from us 102 

V. From Romans i. 17; iii. 21; v. 18 103 

VI. From the Indivisibility of his Righteousness 104 

Objections answered: 105 

That our Redemption is ascribed to Christ's Death 105 

That our Blessedness is attributed to Pardon 105 

That the Obedience of Christ's Death was sufficient 106 

That he owed Obedience for Himself 106 

That if he obeyed for us, we are no longer bound to obey . . 108 

That Christ's Death is a perfect Fulfilment of the Law 110 

Quotations from Calvin's Institutes Ill 

Quotations from the Gallic Synods 113 

CHAPTER V. 

THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 

Opinion of the Pelagians 115 

" of the Jesuits 116 

" of the Lutherans 116 

" of Arminians 117 

" of Cameras, Testardus, ami Amyraut 119 

Doctrine of the Reformed 122 

Statement of the Question 123 

[tdoesnol respect t In i Value of Christ's Death 123 

Nor its Fruits 124 

Nor whethi ]• it conveys Borne Blessings to Reprobates 124 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

Arguments: 125 

I. Christ's Death is restricted to a limited Number 125 

Objections answered 126 

Objection to Matt. i. 21 129 

" to John x. 15; xv. 13 131 

" to Ephes. v. 25; Tit. ii. 14 133 

" to Matt. xx. 28; xxvi. 28; Heb. ix. 28. . . . 134 
II. Christ was given to die only for those who were given 

to him by the Father 135 

m. He Atoned only for those for whom he Intercedes 139 

IT. The Connection between the Gift of Christ and that of 

the Holy Spirit 142 

V. Christ's wonderful Love to his People 144 

VI. The Nature of his Suretyship 145 

VII. The limited Application of his Salvation 14C 

VHI. He did not purchase Faith and Repentance for All. . . 151 

Doctrine of Amyraut 154 

IX. The Completeness of his Expiation 159 

X. The Absurdities of the opposite Doctrine 100 

Objections answered: Id 

That Christ is said to have died for All 161 

2 Cor. v. 15 161 

2 Cor. v. 19 ! 162 

Rom. v. 18, 19 162 

Scripture Use of the Word "All" 164 

1 Tim. ii. 6 1 i; "' 

That he died for the World, John iii. 16 W 

1 John ii. 2 169 

That he died for that which was Lost 171 

For those who Perish 172 

For those who deny Him 173 

For those who profane the Blood of the Covenant 175 

That Men are bound to believe that he died for them 177 

Direct and Reflex Acts of Faith 179 

Objections to this View 183 

That unless he died for All, the Gospel Offer cannot be Sin- 
cere 191 

Quotations from Deodatus and Tronchin 194 



BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 



OF THE TRANSLATOR; 



JAMES R. WILLSON, D.D. 



James R. "Willson was born April 9th, 1780, in the Forks of 
Yough — the neck of land lying between the rivers Youghiogeny and 
Monongahela — about sixteen miles nearly south of Pittsburgh, Pa. 
His father, Zaccheus Willson, was a ruling elder in the Reformed 
Presbyterian Church. His mother, Mary McConnell, was connected, 
before her marriage, with the Associate Church. Their forefathers 
had emigrated from Rosstrevor, County Down, Ireland, in 1721, 
making their first settlement in the ueighbourhood of Back River, 
Delaware, Subsequently, they removed to Central Pennsylvania, lo- 
: t an early period in the Cove, a fine valley, about a mile and 
a half \vi«li'. lying west of Chambersburg, between the North Mount- 
ain and Bear Ridge. In 17C0 they crossed the intervening mount- 
ain- ;it thai lime a very arduous undertaking — and fixed their abode 
in v, lr.it was then an unbroken forest, now constituting the townships 
c>r Ro rtrevor ami Elizabeth. 

While in the Cove where they have left their memorial in the 
name of the Leading town, MoGonnellsburg— some incidents occurred, 
not void of interest, which have been handed down in (he traditions 
of the family. One of them it may he worth while to record. Situ- 

'> near the very outskirts oi" ei\ ili/.ation, tin; valley was, of 

lorn of the Indian, tribes, and somewhere 
about the middle of the Last century tiny actually entered without 

any warning ami ravaged il burning the dwellings, carrying oil' the 

property, ami taking the livet a] o of gome of the settlers. At this 



BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 



time, the doctor's grandfather— so the writer thinks— was very aged, 
almost helpless, decrepit iu mind as well as in body, but of ripened 
and devoted piety. It was in the early part of summer. He dreamed 
that the Indians had come into the valley. He awoke; slept, and 
dreamed again as before. He woke; slept, and dreamed the same 
dream. It was then about daylight, He roused the family and told 
them what had occurred, and advised them to make the beet of their 
way over the mountain. They demurred, and especially insisted 
upon the fact that their horses had been turned out. and time- -per- 
haps a day or two — would be required to find them. Just then, the 
horses came up to the very dour. As this seemed to be a providen- 
tial interposition, the family yielded, and as soon as possible set Out. 
When they had reached the summit of the mountain, they saw. QD 
looking back, their houses in flames. The Indians were in fact wast- 
ing the upper part of the valley at the very hour when tin . 
parent had dreamed the dream that was instrumental— however we 
may account for it — in saving them. 

James was the eldest of a large family. Of course, at thai 
early day. his opportunities for acquiring an education in a rural 
district were not very favourable. In measure, however, this was 
made up by the advantages of intercourse with his father, a man of 
no ordinary intelligence' and reading, and with his mother, a woman 
of robust and masculine mind: both of them being sincerely de- 
vout, and living in the fear of God and in the faith of the GospeL 
Their house, moreover, was then orl of ministers of various denom- 
inations—particularly of those of the same religious connection. 
, wanting; and what there were, were read and studied 
with great care. Hence, the mind of the young' farmer was stored. 
long before he began his classical course, with an amount of useful 
knowledge rarely attained under similar circumstances. He was es- 
pecially eager for religious information. In his fourteenth year he 
led iu family worship during the absence of his lather. And when, 
as was the case very frequently, groups were gathered on the Sab- 
bath and other days of public worship, or at the meetings of church 
courts, discussing doctrinal points. James was sure, boy as he was, to 
make one of the number. 

He remained on the farm — labouring, and taking his part in the 
long journeys over the mountains with horses and pack-saddles, to 
Chainbersburg for family supplies, until he attained his majority. 
He then entered the grammar-school, established a short time pre- 
viously in Canuonsburg by Dr. McMillan, out of which soon grew 



OF THE REV. DR. WILLSON. 



Jefferson College. Here he remained between four and five years, 
and was graduated in 1806 with the first honours of his class. He pur- 
sued the study of theology, somewhat irregularly — a short time with 
the late Dr. McLeod, of New York, but mostly at home. In the 
mean time he married, and took charge, in the year 1809, of the 
Academy at Bedford, Pa., whence, in 1815, he removed, to continue 
the same occupation in the city of Philadelphia, where, besides his 
labours as Principal of a large classical school, and occasionally in 
preaching, he prepared and published a " History of the Doctrine of 
the Atonement, with Translations of Turrettin" on the same sub- 
ject. 

In 1817, having received a call to the pastoral charge of the Re- 
formed Presbyterian congregation of Coldenham. Orange County, 
N. Y., he accepted it, and was ordained in the fall of that year. A 
portion of his charge which was in Newburg received a considerable 
share of his attention, and in the course of a few years became a 
distinct congregation. His pastoral labours were thenceforth restrict- 
ed to Coldenham. During the years 1822-26 he edited " The Evan- 
gelical Witness," a monthly periodical; and also, as before and after- 
wards, superintended the theological studies of young men. With 
the exception of three years, during which he was pastor of a con- 
gregation of the same denomination in the city of Albany, Dr. 
Will-on remained in Coldenham until 1840, when he was called to be 
Senior Professor in the Theological Seminary of the church with 
which he was connected, in Allegheny, Pa.* Here he remained until 
18 15. when, the location of the Seminary being changed, he removed 
to Cincinnati, Ohio. He continued to perform the duties of his chair 
until 1851, when, through debility which had been induced by a 
^sun-stroke " in the summer of 1816, he became unable longer to 
attend to them. Ee survived, preaching occasionally, although with 
difficulty, until September 29th, 1853, when, his death being hastened 
by a severe full, he departed this life, in the sure hope of everlasting 
reel and peace. 

This rapid sketch presents but a faint outline of a life of active 
and unwearied industry in the discharge of most important duties. 
Hi- publications — chicly sermons and essays, besides those already 
mentioned were very numerous. He delivered very many public 
addresses, scientific, literary, and religious. His eloquence was at the 



* Ho had previously been Professor in an Eastern Seminary: in that year the 
Eastern and Western were united. 



BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 



service of every call of philanthropy. While he set before him one 
grand object — the proclamation of Christ's salvation and glory — he 
ever took a deep interest in every matter of social and public con- 
cern. He had an especial delight in the training of candidates for the 
ministry of reconciliation; and at his decease, a large majority of the 
ministry of the Eeformed Presbyterian Church had received at least 
a part of their training under his inspection. In the division which 
took place in 1833, he held the most prominent position in maintain- 
ing the earlier views of the Church. His integrity was never ques- 
tioned. Into every subject to which he directed his attention, he 
entered with all the ardour of a great mind, impelled by deep and 
strong feeling. He had every qualification of the orator: capacious 
intellect; vast attainments in almost every department of human 
knowledge; a ready and retentive memory; lofty imagination, com- 
bined with unsurpassed powers of argument, and copiousness of lan- 
guage and illustration. He was eminently a man of prayer, and in 
whatever society he was thrown he never shunned to declare the 
counsel of God. Among Christians he ever urged the duty, and ex- 
cellence, and efficacy of prayer. His theology was of the old stamp. 
He gave no countenance to supposed modern improvement. Be 
dwelt much in his ministrations upon the glory of Christ and His 
claims to supremacy. He was the friend of man, and never faltered 
in the advocacy of the interests of human liberty. 

His physical appearance corresponded with his mental character. 
His stature, over mx feet; his frame well developed, muscular and 
active; his expanded and lofty forehead; deep-set. dark, and piercing 
eye; his nose slightly arched; his mouth compressed to a line; his en- 
tire aspect marked with the deep lines of thought;— gave indications 
that could not be mistaken of extraordinary mental power. His 
voice, not deep, but sonorous and strong, completed the list of his 
oratorical accomplishments. At his decease he left two sons — both in 
the ministry — James M. Willson, of Philadelphia, and R. Z. Willson, 
late of Craftsbury. Vt.; and three daughters, married to mink 
the same ecclesiastical connection. A monument has been erected to 
his memory, by his friends throughout the Church, and others, in the 
vicinity of the church in Coldenham where he so long ministered, and 
where repose his mortal remains. 



BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 



OF THE AUTHOR, 



FRANCIS TUKKETTIN 



The family of the Turrettins, or Turrettini, 
as it is still written and pronounced in Geneva, 
is of Italian origin. It belonged to the an- 
cient nobility of Lusca, and appears to have 
given a number of gonfalonieri and anziani to 
that republic. One of these gonfalonieri, or 
chief magistrates, was Regulus Turrettini, 
who about the year 1547 became the father 
of Francis, afterwards distinguished as the 
first Protestant member of the family. For 
the sake of his new faith, Francis renounced 
his home and prospects, and became a volun- 
tary exile. Alter being driven from place to 
place by adverse fortune, he finally settled in 



BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 



Geneva, where, in 1627, he received citizen- 
ship, and in 1628 was made one of the Sixty. 
Soon after he died, leaving behind him a large 
sum for public charities, a blameless reputation, 
and a number of children, the oldest of whom 
was the father of our author. 

Benedict Turrettini was born at Zurich, 
November 9, 1588. and died in March, 1631. 
He was a celebrated pastor and professor of 
theology. In 1620 he assisted at the Synod 
of Ales, of which Peter du Moulin was mod- 
erator. He was noted for his piety, his love 
of union, his resolution, his learning, his gen- 
tleness, and his eloquence. Pictet speaks of 
him as the glory of his church and school. No 
man of his day was more honoured, but his 
career was cut short just as he was entering 
middle life. He had six children, of whom the 
third in order was 

Francis Turrettini, the author of the pres- 
ent volume. He was born in 1623, the same 
year in which Mornay du Plessy, Father Paul, 
and Pope Gregory XV. died, and in which the 
great Synod of Charenton was held. From his 
earliest years young Turrettin gave tokens of 



OF FKAXCIS TURRETTIN. 



genius. When his father found himself dying, 
he caused Francis, then eight years old, to be 
brought to his bedside; and said, with faltering 
lips, "This child is marked with God's seal:" 
Hie sigillo Dei obsigrialus est. Francis greatly 
distinguished himself in his academic course, 
and seems to have been remarkable for the 
eagerness with which he attempted diversified 
branches of study. Upon devoting himself to 
the study of theology, he enjoyed the advan- 
tage of eminent instructors. The most noted 
of these was John Diodati, another Italian 
Protestant, who sat in the chair of Calvin and 
Beza. Diodati, whose biblical labours are 
well known, was prominent in the Synod of 
Dort and the Convention of Saumur; at the 
latter of which he so succeeded in pouring oil 
on the waters of controversy, that the Queen 
of France thanked him repeatedly. Another 
insl ructor of Turrettin was Theodore Tronchin, 
also ;i member of the Synod of Dort and a 
noble defender of the truth. He lived to a 
venerable age, and contributed much to the 
theological celebrity of Q-eneva. His family, 
originally from Provence, long continued to 



BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 



be prominent in the little republic, where to 
this day it has its representatives, one of whom, 
the excellent Colonel Tronehin, is known far 
and wide among evangelical Christians. An- 
other celebrated instructor of Turrettin was 
Frederick Spanheim. 

After finishing his curriculum at home, Tur- 
rettin went to Leyden, then, and long after, a 
centre of learning and theology, where he 
maintained theses in the schools with great 
eclat. In Holland he enjoyed the lectures of 
such men as Polyander; the saintly Rivet, 
equally known by his voluminous works and 
Iry the record of his death; Salmasius, one of 
the most learned men of his age, although 
worsted in his unfortunate controversy with 
Milton; Heinsius, Trigland, Yoet, Hoornbeek, 
and Grolius, the linguist. At Utrecht he be- 
came acquainted with that prodigy of her age, 
Anna Maria Sclmreman. In 1G45 he pro- 
ceeded to Paris, where he resided under 
the roof of the immortal Daille'; met with 
Falcar, Drelincourt, Albertini, and Blondel; 
and pursued phj'sical and astronomical studies 
under Grassendi. Xext he visited Saumur, the 



OF FRANCIS TURRETTIN". 



little city on the Loire, famous for its Protes- 
tant university. There he heard Placseus, 
Anryraulcl, and Capellus; men whose learning, 
subtilty, and peculiar views in theology, are 
fully presented in the Theses Salmnrienses. 
He even went as far south as to Montauban, 
then, as now, the seat of a Protestant univer- 
sity, where Carolus and Garissol were at that 
time nourishing. 

Returning home in 1648, he became a pas- 
tor of the church of Geneva, and preacher to 
the Italian congregation, such a service being 
required by the great number of refugees 
from Italy who sought an asylum in Geneva. 
AVhen he began to preach, such were the flow 
of his discourse, the solidity of his matter, and 
the majestic gracefulness of his eloquence, that 
immense popularity attended him. In 1650, 
the chair of Philosophy was several times of- 
fered to him by the government. After the 
death of Aaron Moms at Leyclen, Turrettin 
was called to supply his place as pastor. He 
accepted the invitation, and remained at Ley- 
den ;il tout a year; but the Genevese would 
ao1 endure his altsonce longer. The venerable 



BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 



Tronchin having outlived his capacity for pub- 
lic service, Turrettin was called to fill his 
place. He complied with the call, and as- 
sumed the theological chair in 1653. As a 
public teacher he was faithful and undaunted, 
daily inflicting severe blows upon Popery, So- 
cinianism, and Arminianism. From the pulpit 
he thundered against prevailing immoralities, 
while with many tears he besought sinners to 
be reconciled to Christ. His eloquence was of 
the most persuasive and irresistible character. 
Pictet celebrates his benignity, his pity to 
the poor, his care of the widow and the or- 
phan, his hospitality, and his edifying dis- 
course. 

In the 3'ear 1GG1 he was summoned to a 
new service. The people of Geneva were un- 
able to bear the expense of fortifying their 
walls; they therefore appealed for aid to the 
States-General of Holland, and deputed Tur- 
rettin as their commissioner for this purpose. 
His father had been sent by them on a similar 
errand forty years before. Passing through 
Basle, he was received with honour by Wet- 
stein and others of the great men of the uni- 



OF FRANCIS TURRETTIN. 



versity there. In Holland he obtained great 
distinction, being complimented by the author- 
ities with a gold chain and medal. Earnest 
but fruitless efforts were made to detain him, 
both at Ley den and the Hague. On his way 
home, he passed through Paris and Charenton. 
At the latter place he first met Claude, and 
preached before the vast Protestant assembly 
there, of which Pictet speaks with singular 
admiration. 

After his return he renewed his labours 
with redoubled zeal. In the year 1664 he 
published against the Papists and in vindica- 
tion of the Reformed; and two years after- 
wards, his disquisitions concerning the satis- 
faction of Christ. In 1674 he published his 
sermons, which were received with great ap- 
plause. In the same year he issued his great 
work on Theology, Institutio Theologize 
Elenothle, from which the contents of the 
present volume have been extracted. It is 
said that he was very reluctant to give this 
work to the press, and finally did so only in 
compliance with numerous letters from the 
learned in all parts of Reformed Christendom. 



BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 



In 1687 he published oh the necessity of se- 
cession from Rome, and on other important 
points. 

In 1669 Turrettin was married to Isabella, 
daughter of John de Masse, lord of Sauvet, 
whose ancestors had held the Marquisate of 
Saluzzo. Four children were the fruit of this 
union, of whom only one survived, viz., John 
Alfonso Turrettin, who was born in 1671, 
and ordained to the ministry about the year 
1694. He became a preacher of unusual 
power, held successively the chairs of Ecclesi- 
astical History and of Theology in Geneva, 
and was one of the greatest writers of the age 
upon natural religion and the external de- 
fences of Christianity. Inferior to his father 
in vigour, he was his superior in elegance; and 
his copious and classical diction gave a charm 
to his writings, which secured perusal and ap- 
plause beyond the pale of Calvinistic bodies. 

Turrettiivs later years were embittered by 
the distresses of his Reformed brethren in 
Piedmont and France. In the latter country, 
in consequence of the revocation of the Edict 
of Xantes, in 1685, hundreds of churches 



OF FRANCIS TURRETTIX. 



were demolished, and Protestantism was driven 
from the kingdom. But for these distresses of 
a sympathetic soul, he may be said to have 
had a happy old age, being scarcely ever ill 
except from a few attacks of acute disease. 
On the 24th of September, 1687, he was sud- 
denly seized with violent pains. To Professor 
Pictet he expressed his readiness to die; but 
said that the severity of his pain did not suf- 
fer him to pray as he would, yet he knew in 
whom he had believed. He repeated many 
passages of Scripture, among them the words 
from the 38th Psalm — "0 Lord, rebuke me 
not in thine anger" which he had a few days 
before expounded to the Italian congregation. 
Upon his only son he solemnly enjoined four 
things: the care of the Church, if he ever 
should be called to it; the love of truth; hu- 
mility; and charity. To his relative, Dr. 
Midiol Turrettin, Pastor and Professor, he 
declared his faith and hope, and committed 
the solemn care of the Church. His charges 
and exhortations were numerous. His coun- 
tenance was expressive rather of triumph 
than of death. When, as his agony increased, 



10 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

some of those who stood by reminded him of 
his last sermon, on the words, Let us come 
boldly to the throne of grace, he cried, as if im- 
patient, Eamus, eamus ! Shortly after he 
slumbered, and so died without a struggle, at 
the age of sixty-four years. 

It is not necessary to dwell upon the char- 
acter of Francis Turrettin as a theologian. 
His adherence to the received doctrine of the 
Reformed Church is so uniform and strict, 
that there is no writer who has higher claims 
as an authority as to what that doctrine is. 
His distinguishing excellence is perspicuity 
and discrimination. His intellect was admira- 
bly fitted and trained for perceiving and stat- 
ing the real principles involved in theological 
questions; so that he was a remarkable illus- 
tration of the maxim, qui bene distinguit, bene 
docet. To this primary excellence he added an 
admirable judgment, which is evinced in the 
characteristic moderation of his opinions, and 
the general soundness of his arguments. His 
method is simple and logical. Under every 
head he begins with the Status Qucestionis, 
and, with discriminating accuracy, frees the 



OF FRAXCIS TURRETTIX. 11 

subject in hand from all adventitious matter, 
and brings out the precise point to be consid- 
ered. Then follow his arguments in numeri- 
cal order, each distinct and in logical succes- 
sion, in support of the position which he ad- 
vocates. To this series of arguments succeeds 
the Fontes Solutionum, or answers to objec- 
tions, which often furnish examples of as 
pithy and discriminating replies as are any- 
where to be met with. There is scarcely a 
question which American divines have been 
discussing as discoveries, which the student 
will not find settled, or at least considered, in 
the perspicuous pages of Turrettin. 

The writer in the Princeton Review, (for 
•July, 1848,) from whom the present sketch 
has been extracted, concludes his article with 
these sentences, which are well worthy of re- 
production here: — "We were once told by 
Chief Justice Ewing [of New Jersey] that it 
was the uniform practice of Mr. Justice 
Washington to read through the whole of 
Blackstone's Commentaries once a year ; and 
that he did so to give consistency, method, 
and unity to all the otherwise scattered and 



12 BIOGEAPHICAL SKETCH. 

heterogeneous acquisitions of the year. We 
entertain no doubt that a similar practice 
with regard to the equally logical and more 
commanding sj^stem of Turrettin, would do 
more for a masculine theology and an ener- 
getic pulpit, than cart-loads of religious jour- 
nals, epitomes from the German, and occa- 
sional sermons." 



TUKKETTIN 

ox 

THE ATONEMENT. 



CHAPTER I. 
ftlje Necessity of % Atonement. 

Torek Opinions ox this Subject. — Preliminary Remarks: — 1. As 
to the Nature of Six. — 2. The Satisfaction reqxjired. — 3. The 
Relations of God to the Sixxer. — 4. The Qualifications op 

the st listittte.and the conditions of substitution. arguments 

to trove tiii: Necessity of the Atonement: — I. God's Vindica- 
tory Justice. — II. The Nature of Six. — III. The Sanction of 
the Law.— IV. The Preaching of the Gospel. — V. The Great- 
OF God's Love. — VI. The Glory of the Divine Perfec- 
tions. 

The Priesthood of Christ, according to the Apostle 
Paul and the typos of the Jewish ritual, is divided 
into two parts: the atonement which he made to divine 
justice, and hie intercession in heaven, (1 John ii. 2. 
Beb. ix. 12.) The necessity of such an atonement, 
which is the foundation of all practical piety and all 
( Ihristian hopes, must therefore be firmly established, 



14 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

and defended against the fiery darts of Satan, with 
which it is attacked by innumerable adversaries. 

Upon this subject, the opinions of divines may be 
classed under three heads : 1 . That of the Socinians, who 
not only deny that an atonement was made, but affirm 
that it was not at all necessary, since God both could 
and would pardon sin, without any satisfaction made 
to his justice. 2. That of those who distinguish be- 
tween an absolute and a hypothetical necessity; and 
in opposition to the Socinians maintain the latter, 
while they deny the former. By a hypothetical neces- 
sity they mean that which flows from the divine decree. 
God has decreed that an atonement is to be made, 
therefore it is necessary. To this they also add a 
necessity of fitness; as the commands of God have 
been transgressed, it is fit that satisfaction should be 
made, that the transgressor may not pass with impu- 
nity. Yet they deny that it was absolutely necessary, 
as God, they say, might have devised some other way 
of pardon than through the medium of an atonement. 
This is the ground taken by Augustine in his book on 
the Trinity. Some of the reformers who wrote before 
the time of Socinus, adopt the opinions of that father. 
3. That of those who maintain its absolute necessity; 
affirming that God neither has willed, nor could have 
willed to forgive sins, without a satisfaction made to 
his justice. This, the common opinion of the ortho- 
dox, is our opinion. 



ITS NECESSITY. 15 



Various errors are maintained on this point, by our 
opponents. The removal of the grounds upon which 
they rest will throw light upon the whole subject. 
They err in their views of the nature of sin, for which 
a satisfaction is required; of the satisfaction itself; of 
the character of God to whom it is to be rendered; 
and of Christ by whom it is rendered. 

1. Of sin, which renders us guilty, and binds us 
over to punishment as hated of God. It may be 
viewed as a debt which we are bound to pay to divine 
justice, in which sense the law is called " a hand-wri- 
ting," (Col. ii. 14:) as a principle of enmity, whereby 
we hate God and he becomes our enemy: as a crime 
against the government of the universe by which, 
before God. the supremo governor and judge, we be- 
come deserving of everlasting death and malediction. 
Whence, sinners are expressly called " debtors," (Matt, 
vi. 12); "enemies to God," both actively and pas- 
sively, (Col. i. 21); "and guilty before God," (Rom. 
iii. 19.) We, therefore, infer that three things were 
accessary in order to our redemption; the payment of 
the debt contracted by Bjn, the appeasing of the divine 
wrath, and the expiation of guilt. 

2. From the preceding remarks, the nature of the 
satisfaction which Bin requires may be easily perceived. 
Thai which we are chiefly to attend to in sin being its 
criminality, satisfaction bas relation to the penalty 
enacted againsl it by the Supreme Judge. 



16 TURRETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

But here we must attend to a twofold payment, 
which is noticed by jurists. One which, by the very deed 
of payment, sets at liberty the debtor, and annuls the 
obligation, whether the payment is made by the debtor 
in his own person, or by a surety in his name. An- 
other in which the bare fact of payment is not suffi- 
cient to liberate the debtor, because, the payment is 
not precisely that which is demanded in the obligation, 
but an equivalent. In this case, though the creditor 
lias a right to refuse the acceptance of such payment, 
yet if he admits it and esteems it a payment, it is a sat- 
isfaction. The former of these takes place in a pecu- 
niary, the latter in a penal debt. In a pecuniary trans- 
action, the fact of the payment of the sum due frees 
the debtor, by whomsoever the payment is made. 
Respect here is had, not to the person paying, but to 
the payment only. Whence, the creditor, having been 
paid the full amount due. is not said to have treated 
with indulgence the debtor, or to have forgiven the 
debt. But in penal matters the case is different. 
The debt regards not things, but persons; not what is 
paid, so much as him who pays; i. c., that the trans- 
gressor may be punished. For as the law demands 
individual personal obedience, so it demands indi- 
vidual personal suffering. In order that the guilty 
person may be released through an atonement matle 
by another in his stead, the governor or judge must 
pass a decree to that effect. That decree or act of the 



ITS NECESSITY. 



17 



judge is, in relation to the law. called relaxation, and 
in relation to the debtor or guilty person, pardon; for 
his personal suffering is dispensed with, and in its 
place a vicarious suffering accepted. But because, in 
the subject under discussion, sin has not a relation to 
debt only, but also to punishment, satisfaction is not 
of that kind, which by the act itself frees the debtor. 
To effect this there must be an act of pardon passed 
by the Supreme Judge, because that is not precisely 
paid, i. e., a personal enduring of the penalty, which 
the law demands, but a vicarious suffering only. 

• wo discover how perfectly accordant remission 
and satisfaction are with each other, notwithstanding 
the outcry made by the enemy respecting their sup- 
posed discrepancy. Christ made the satisfaction in 
his life and :it his death, and God, by accepting this 

'•linn, provides for remission. The satisfaction 
respects Christ, from whom God demandsa punishment, 
BOt numerically, but in kind, the same with that which 
we owed. Pardon respects believers, who are freed 
from punishment in their own persons, while a vica- 

mffering is accepted. Hence we see how admi- 
rably mercy is tempered with justice. Justice is 

ised againsl Bin, ami mercy towards the sinner; 
an atonement i- made to the divine justice by a surety, 
and < rod mercifully pardons as. 

3. This reasoning is greatly fortified from a consid- 
eration of the relations in which God stands to the sinner. 



13 



TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



He may be viewed in a threefold relation: as the 
creditor; as the Lord and party offended, and as the 
judge and ruler. But though both the former rela- 
tions must be attended to in this matter, yet the third 
is to be chiefly considered. God here is not merely a 
creditor, who may at pleasure remit what is his due, 
nor merely the party offended who may do as he will 
with his own claims without injury to any one; but he 
is also a judge and rcctoral governor, to whom alone 
pertains the infliction of punishment upon offenders, 
and the power of remitting the penal sanction of the 
law. This all jurists know belongs to the chief ma- 
gistrate alone. The creditor- may demand his debt, 
and the party offended reparation for the offence or 
indemnity for his loss; but the judge alone has the 
power to compel payment, or exact punishment. Here 
lies the capital error of our adversaries, who maintain 
that God is to 1»' considered merely in the light of a 
creditor, who is at liberty to exact or remit the pun- 
ishment at pleasure. It is however certain, that God 
sustains the character of judge and ruler of the world, 
who has the rights of sovereignty to maintain, and 
professes himself to be the guardian and avenger of 
his laws : and hence he possesses not only the claims 
of a creditor, which he might assert or remit at pleas- 
ure, but also the right of government and of punish- 
ment, which is naturally indispensable. We must, 
however, in the punishment itself, distinguish accu- 



ITS NECESSITY. 19 



rately between the enforcing of the penalty, and the 
manner and circumstances under 'which it is enforced, 
as they are things widely different. Punishment may 
be viewed generally ; and in this respect the right of 
Heaven to inflict it is indispensable, being founded in 
the divine justice. If there be such an attribute as 
justice belonging to God, then sin must have its due, 
which is punishment. But as to the manner and cir- 
cumstances of the punishment, the case is altogether 
different. They are not essential to that attribute. 
They arc to be arranged according to his will and 
pleasure. It may seem fit to the goodness of God 
that there should be. in relation to time, a delay of 
punishment ; in relation to degree, a mitigation of it ; 
and in relation to persons, a substitution. For al- 
though the person sinning deserves punishment and 
might suffer it with the strictest justice, yet such pun- 
ishment is not necessarily indispensable. For rea- 

of great importance, it may be transferred to a 
surety. In this sense, it is said by divines that sin is 
of necessity punished impersonally, but every sinner 
i -• not therefore of necessity to be punished person- 
ally. Through the Bingular mercy of God some may 

empted from punishment, by the substitution of 
a surety in their Btead. 

Bu1 thai we may conceive it possible for God to do 
this, he musl not 1»" considered as an inferior judge 

Inted by law. An officer of that character can- 



20 



TUREETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



not remit anything of the rigour of the law by trans- 
ferring the punishment from the actual offender to 
another person. God must be viewed in his true char- 
acter, as a supreme judge who giveth account of none of 
his matters, who will satisfy his justice by the punish- 
ment of sin, and who, through his infinite wisdom and 
unspeakable mercy, determines to do this in such a 
way as shall relax somewhat of the extreme rigour of 
punishment, by admitting a substitute and letting the 
sinner go free. Hence we discover to whom the 
atonement is to be made : whether to the devil, (as 
Socinus, with a sneer, asks.) or to God. as sovereign 
judge. For as the devil is no more than the servant 
of God, the keeper of the prison, who has no power 
over sinners, unless by the just judgment of God, the 
atonement is not to be made to this executor of the 
divine vengeance, but to the Supreme Ruler, who pri- 
marily and principally holds them in durance. We 
may add, that it is a gratuitous and false supposition, 
that in the suffering of punishment, there must be 
some person to whom the punishment shall be ren- 
dered, as in a pecuniary debt. It is sufficient that 
there is a judge, who may exact it in order to support 
the majesty of the State, and maintain the order of 
the empire. 

4. The person icho makes the atonement is here to be 
considered. As sin is to be viewed in the threefold 
light of debt, enmity, and crime ; and God in the 



ITS NECESSITY. 21 



threefold light of creditor, party offended, and judge ; 
so Christ must put on a threefold relation correspond- 
ing to all these. He must sustain the character of a 
Surety, for the payment of the debt. He must be a 
Mediator, a peace-maker, to take away the enmity of 
the parties and reconcile us to God. He must he a 
Priest and victim, to substitute himself in our room, 
and make atonement, by enduring the penal sanction 
of the law. Again : that such an atonement may be 
made, two things are requisite: — 1. That the same 
nature which sins shall make restitution. 2. That 
the consideration given must possess infinite value, in 
order to the removal of the infinite demerit of sin. 
In Christ, two natures were necessary for the making 
of an atonement: a human nature, to suffer; and a divine 
nature, to give the requisite value to his sufferings. 

Moreover, we must demonstrate how it is possible, 
in consistency with justice, to substitute an innocent 
person, as Chrisl was. in our room; because such a 
substitution, at first view, appears to be not only unu- 
sual, but also unjust. Though a substitution, Which is 
common in a pecuniary debt, rarely occurs in penal 
transactions— nay, is sometimes prohibited, as was the 
among the Romans, because no one is master of 
his own life, and because the commonwealth would 
Buffer loss in such Cases -yet it was not unknown 
among tin- heathen. We have an example of it in 
Damon and Pythias; two intimate friends, one of whom 



I ■••- 



TURRET-TIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 



voluntarily entered himself bail for the other to Dio- 
nysius in a capital cause. Cur tins, Codrus, and Bru- 
tus devoted themselves for their country. The right 
of punishing hostages, when princes fail in their prom- 
ises, has been recognized by all nations. Hence host- 
ages ore called avrtyvxoL, substitutes. To this Paul 
alludes, when lie says, (Rom. v. 7.) "For a good 
man some would even dare to die."' The Holy Scrip- 
tures often give it support, not only from the impu- 
tation of sin, by which one bears the punishment 
due to another, but from the public use of sacrifices, 
in which the victim was substituted in the place of the 
sinner and suffered death in hi- stead. Hence the 
imposition of hands, and the confession of sins over 
the head of the victims. 

But, that such a substitution may be made without 
tie 1 .-lightest appearance of injustice, various condi- 
tions are requisite in the substitute or surety, all 
which are found in Christ. 1. A common nature, 
that sin may be punished in the same nature which is 
guilty, (Heb. ii. 14.) 2. The consent of the will, 
that he should voluntarily take the burden upon him- 
self. (Heli. x. 9,) — '" Lo, I come to do thy wiU." 
3. Power over his own life, so that he may rightfully 
determine respecting it, (John. x. 18.) — "No one 
taketh away my life, but I lay it down of myself, for I j 
have power to lay it down, and take it up again." 4. The | 
power of bearing the punishment due to us. and of 



ITS NECESSITY. 



freeing both himself and us from the poorer of death ; 
because, if he himself could be holden of death, he 
could free no one from its dominion. That Christ 
possesses this power, no one doubts. 5. Holiness and 
immaculate purity, that, being polluted by no sin, he 
might not have to offer sacrifice for himself, but for 
us only, (Heb. vii. 26, 27.) 

Under these conditions, it was not unjust for Christ 
to substitute himself in our room, while he is right- 
eous and we unrighteous. By this act no injury is 
done to any one. Not to Christ, for he voluntarily 
took the punishment upon himself, and had the right to 
decide concerning his own life and death, and also 
power to raise himself from the dead. Not to God 
the judge, for he willed and commanded it ; nor to his 
natural justice, for the Surety satisfied this by suffer- 
ing the punishment which demanded it. Not to the 
empire of the universe, by depriving an innocent per- 
of life, for Christ, freed from death, lives for ever- 
more; or by the life of the surviving sinner injuring 
the kingdom of God, for he is converted and made 
holy by Christ. Not to the divine law, for its honour 
has been maintained by the perfect fulfilment of all 
mand8, through the righteousness of the Media- 
tor ; and, by our legal and mystical union, he becomes 
one with us, and we one with him. Hence he may 
justly take upon him our sin and sorrows, and impart 
to us his right) ousness and blessings. So there is no 



24 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

abrogation of the law, no derogation from its claims ; 
as what we owed is transferred to the account of 
Christ, to be paid by him. 

These preliminary remarks we have thought neces- 
sary, in order to the lucid discussion of the question 
concerning the necessity of the atonement. We now 
proceed to inquire whether it was necessary that 
Christ should satisfy for us, as well absolutely, in re- 
lation to the divine justice, as hypothetical!)', on the 
ground of a divine decree : whether it was abso- 
lutely necessary, in order to our salvation, that an 
atonement should be made, God not having the power 
to pardon our Bins without a satisfaction, or whether 
it was rendered necessary only by the divine decree? 
The Socinians, indeed, admit no kind of aec< 
Some of the old divines, and some members of the 
Reformed Church, contend for a hypothetical 
sity only. They think it sufficient for the refutation 
of the heretic. But we, with the great body of the 
orthodox, contend for both. We do not urge a 
necessity simply natural, such as that of fire to burn, 
which is involuntary, and admit- of no modification 
in its exercise. It is a moral and rational necessity 
for which we plead ; one which, as it flows from the 
holiness and justice of God, and cannot be exer- 
cised any other way than freely and voluntarily, 
admits of various modifications, provided there is no 



ITS NECESSITY. 25 



infringement of the natural rights of Deity. That 
there is such a necessity, is evinced by many argu- 
ments. 

I. The vindicatory justice of God. That such an 
attribute is natural and essential to God, has been 
proved at large elsewhere. This avenging justice 
belongs to God as a judge, and he can no more dis- 
pense with it than he can cease to be a judge or deny 
himself; though, at the same time, he exercises it 
freely. It does not consist in the exercise of a gra- 
tuitous power, like mercy, by which, whether it be exer- 
cised or not, injustice is done to no one. It is that 
attribute by which God gives to every one his due, 
and from the exercise of which, when proper objects 
are presented, he can no more abstain, than he can do 
what is unjust. This justice is the constant will of 
punishing sinners, which in God cannot be inefficient, 
as his majesty is supreme and his power infinite. 
Anil hence the infliction of punishment upon the 
transgressor or his surely is inevitable. No objection 
to this can be drawn from the liberty of God, for that 

ircised only in matters of positive enactment, not 
in such as are of natural right: nor from his mercy, 
because that, while it may free the sinner from punish- 
ment, does not demand thai sin shall not be pun- 
ished. 

II. The nature <>)' sin. which [s n moral evil and 
itially opposed to holiness, forms another argu- 



26 TUKBETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

rnent. The connection between it and physical evil is 
natural and necessary. As physical or penal evil 
cannot exist without moral evil, cither personal or 
imputed, so there cannot be moral evil without pro- 
ducing natural evil. Moral and physical good, or 
holiness and happiness, are united together by the wis- 
dom, as well as by the goodness and justice of God; 
so that a good man must be happy, for goodness i ; a 
part of the divine image. The wicked must be miser- 
able, because God is just; and this the rather, because 
when God • ings to the righteous, he does ir 

of his own bounty, without any merit on their part; 
but when he punishes the sinner, he render- to him 
precisely what he has merited by his 

III. The sanction of the Law, which threatens death 
to the sinner. (Deut. xxvii. 29. Gen. ii. 17. Ez. xviii. 
20. Rom. i. 18, 32, and vi. 2:;.) Since God is true 
and cannot lie. these threatenings mus rily be 

executed either upon the sinner, or upon some one in 
his stead. In vain do our opponents reply, that the 
threatening is hypothetical, not absolute, and ma; 
relaxed by repentance. This is a gratuitous supposi- 
tion. That such a condition is cither expressed or 
understood, neither has been nor can be proved. 
Nay, as the penal sanction of the law is a part of the 
law itself, which is natural and indispensable, this 
sanction must also be immutable. With the judicial 
threatenings of the law, we must not confound par- 



ITS NECESSITY. 



ticular and economical comminutions, or such as are 
paternal and evangelical, which are denounced against 
men to recal them to repentance. Such threatenings 
may be recalled in case of penitence. Of this kind 
were those denounced against Hezekiah, (Isaiah 
xxxviii.) and against Nineveh, (Jon. iii.) 

IV. The Preaching of the Gospel, which announces 
the violent and painful death of the Mediator and 
Surety on the cross, is another argument which power- 
fully confirms the necessity of that event. For we 
cannot believe that God would multiply sufferings 
unnecessarily. His goodness and wisdom do not per- 
mit us to harbour an idea that the Father could ex- 
pose his most innocent and beloved Son to an excru- 
ciating and ignominious death, without a necessity 
which admits of no relaxation. The only necessity 
which can be possibly imagined here, is that of making 
an atonement to the divine justice for our sins. 
Every one must perceive that it was absolutely neces- 
sary. I know that our opponents affect to produce 
various other reasons for the accursed death of the 
cross, such as to confirm Christ's doctrine, and to set 
;ui example of all kinds of virtue, especially of charity 
and constancy! But since Christ had confirmed his 
doctrines by numerous stupendous miracles, and 
through his life had given the most illustrious exam- 
ple-- of every human virtue, win» could believe that 
God, for that one cause alone, would expose his only- 



28 TURRETTIX ON THE ATONEMENT. 

begotten Son to such dire torments ? Therefore, with- 
out all doubt, there was another cause fur that dispen- 
sation, to wit: a regard for the honour of his justice. 
To this the Holy Spirit bears witness by the Apostle 
Paul. (Rom. iii. 5.) who affirms that " God hath set 
forth Christ to be a propitiation for our sins — etc tv6tti-tv 
rjjg diKaioovv?) avror—to declare /lis righteousness," 
which was inexorable, and did not suffer our sins to be 
pardoned on any oilier terms, than by the intervention 
of the death of Christ. 

Again: if God was able and willing by his word 
alone without any atonement to pardon our sins, why 
does the Apostle Paul .-o often and emphatically refer 
our justification and salvation to the blood of 01 
" We are justified by the redemption which is in his blood" 
(Rom. iii. 24.) " We hare redemption through his blood; 
the remission of sins." (Eph. i. T.i " He hath reconciled 
all things to himself by the blood of Christ;' (Col. i. 20.) 
Xow there was do need that his blood should be shed 
if remission depended solely upon the divine will. On 
this supposition, the apostle would rashly and falsely 
affirm, what he often affirms, that the Mood f bulls 
and of goats, that is, the sacrifice-; under the law, could 
not take away sins; and that the oblation of Christ 
alone could. If there was no need of any purgation, 
but penitence alone was sufficient to take away sin, that 
is. the guilt of sin. without any sacrifice, the apostle's 
assertion is groundless. What could be taken away 



ITS NECESSITY. 29 



without any sacrifice at all, could surely be removed 
by legal sacrifices. If the divine will alone is neces- 
sary, why is it that Paul never refers to it, but always 
ascends to the nature of things, as when he asserts 
that it was impossible for the blood of bulls to take 
away sins ? Surely it must be because sin is so hateful 
to God, that its stain can be washed away by nothing 
less than the blood of the Son of God. 

V. If there was no necessity that Christ should die, 
the greatness of God's love in not sparing his own Son, 
but delivering him up for us all, which the apostle 
commends, will be not a little diminished. If there 
was no obstacle on the part of justice, in the way of 
our salvation, it would indeed have been great grace 
in God to have forgiven our sins. But it would have 
fallen far short of that stupendous love which, though 
justice inexorable stood in the way, removed, by means 
found in the treasures of infinite wisdom, all impedi- 
ments to our redemption, displaying a most amiable 
harmony between justice and mercy. Nor can Christ 
be said to have appeased the wrath of God, if he, 
■without demanding any satisfaction, could by a mere 
volition have laid aside his own wrath. 

VI. Finally,our opinion relative to the necessity of 
iin atonemenl does not, in the Least, derogate from any 
of the Divine Perfections. Not from God's absolute 
Power, because he can ueither deny himself nor any of 



30 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

his attributes, nor can he act in such a way as to give 
the appearance of delighting in sin, by holding com- 
munion with the sinner. Not from the Freedom of 
his Will, because he can will nothing contrary to his 
justice and holiness, which would be injured should sin 
go unpunished. Not from his boundless Mercy, for 
this is exercised towards the sinner, though punishment 
is inflicted on the Surety. On the contrary, it makes 
a glorious display of the most illustrious of the divine 
perfections: of his Holiness, on account of which he can 
have no communion with the sinner, until, by an atone- 
ment, his guilt is removed and his pollution purged; 
of his Justice, which inexorably demands punishment 
of sin; of his Wisdom, in reconcilinu- the respective 
claims of justice and mercy; and of his Love, in not 
sparing his own Son in order that he might spare us. 



CHAPTER II. 
£!je Srutl] of tlje Atonement. 

Statement of tue Question. — Arguments for the Truth of the 
Atonement: — I. Christ is said to have redeemed his People at 
the Price of his Blood. — II. He died in their Place. — III. He 
bore their Sins. — IV. He offered a Sacrifice on the Cross. — 
V. He made Reconciliation vy t ith God. — VI. The Nature of 
his Death. — VII. The Perfections of God. — Objections an- 
swered:— That the Word Satisfaction is not used in Scrip- 
ture; — That Christ's Sufferings are exemplary; — That Satis- 
i A( Tiox and Remission are inconsistent with each other; — 
That on our supposition Christ must have made Satisfaction to 
Himself; — That he did nut suffer eternal Death ; — That he did 
NOT BCFFER Despair;— That the Death of One could not justly 
answer for the Death of Many;— That Atonement is opposed 
to Ezekielxviij. 20; and that it leads to Sin and carnal Ease. 

Having in the last chapter asserted the necessity 
of the atonement, we shall now endeavour to prove its 
truth, which the Sociniana not only call in question, 
but expressly deny. Though, in order to conceal 
their real views, they appear willing to retain the word 
satisfaction, and indeed often use it, yet it isinasense 
widely dififerenl from that of the orthodox divines; as 
will appear from the statement of the question. 

The Bubjecl in controversy is not, whether Christ, 



32 TURRETTIX ON THE ATONEMENT. 

by a general satisfaction, has fulfilled all the conditions 
which the divine will imposed upon him. in order to 
procure our salvation; for our adversaries admit such 
a satisfaction, as Crellius professes in his book against 
Grotius. But we inquire whether the satisfaction 
made by Christ was strictly penal, and not only ful- 
filled the will of God, but also satisfied his justice: 
Christ having taken upon himself our sins. Our op- 
ponents deny; we affirm. 

The controversy does not respect a metaphorical 
satisfaction, which is effected by a nominal remission 
of sin; a satisfaction, which by supplication obtains, 
through the mere indulgence of God, some favour. 
This is admitted, and often spoken of by our adver- 
saries to deceive the simple. But they pertinaciously 
deny that Christ has made a true and proper satisfac- 
tion, by paying a full price, and by obtaining, through 
his merits, the acquittal of the -inner on the ground 
of justice. We maintain that this is the true scriptu- 
ral atonement. 

It is not whether the death of Christ is advantage- 
ous to us. and in various respects promotes our inter- 
ests; for this also they willingly admit. It is whether, 
by substituting himself in our place, he suffered the 
punishment due to us. We maintain that he did. 

It is not whether Christ is our Saviour, on account 
of his doctrine announcing to us the way of salvation; 
on account of the example of his life, in which by his 



ITS TRUTH. 33 



virtues and miracles lie confirmed the truth; or on ac- 
count of his efficacious power, by which he will assur- 
edly bestow on us this salvation; for all this Socinus* 
grants to Christ. The great subject of debate is, 
whether Christ, by his satisfaction and merits, is our 
Saviour in the strictest sense of the word. Our oppo- 
nents have openly made the utmost exertions to over- 
turn this doctrine, which has been constantly held by 
the orthodox, and is proved by various solid and irre- 
sistible arguments. 

I. The first argument is drawn from those texts in 
which Christ is said to have redeemed us at the price of 
his blood; for the payment of a price properly so called 
and perfectly sufficient, shows that a satisfaction in its 
true and proper sense has been made, since price always 
has reference to distributive justice. These texts are 
various. i; Ye were redceemed by a price "\ " Ye were 
redeemed from your vain conversation, not by corruptible 
things such as silver and gold, but by the precious blood of 
Christ, as of a lamb without spot. v '\. " Christ gave 
himself for us, that he might redeem (purchase) us from 
a'l iniquity."^ " In whom we have redemption through 
his blood."\\ " The Son of man came that he might lay 
doicn his life a ransom for many — Xvrpov avn nokXcor — 
i.e., a price of payment, in the room of many. The name 



* Chap. 9, Book I. do Servatore, Chap. 5, C. f 1 Cor. vi. 20. 

flPet.i.19. § Tit. ii. 14. ||Eph.i.7. 



34 TURBETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

Jesus was given to him, u because he saves his people 
from their sins.""' 

Though the word Redemption is sometimes used in 
Scripture to denote a mere deliverance, which is pro- 
cured without the payment of any price, as Moses is call- 
ed /'-our?]?, a deliverer:'!- and as God is said to have 
"redeemed Israel out of the house of bondage;" yet it 
does not follow that in this argumenl it is to be taken in 
that sense. Many things prove that in the business of 
man's salvation, the word is to be understood as signi- 
fying redemption by the payment of a price. 1. This 
is the primary import of the words Xvtqov, anokvrpov, 
and we may in no case give them any other, unless fop 
a very solid reason. This is not denied by Socinus 
himself.* " To redeem any one, properly signifies 
nothing else bul to free a captive, by paying a price to 
him who detains him." 2. The condition of man re- 
quires this: since he is a prisoner not only of Satan 
and death, but also of sin. both as to its guilt and its 
pollution, and therefore of the divine law and justice. 
He is condemned of God and a child of wrath, and can- 
not be released but by a satisfactory payment. 3. Such 
is the redemption procured by the price mentioned, (1 
Cor. vi. 20.) Why should the apostle use hvrgov and 
ri[iri, price of redemption and punishment, if no price was 



* Matt. i. 21. t Acts, vii. 35. Deut. vii. 8. 

X Book xii. chap. i. 



ITS TRUTH. 35 



paid ? The reply usually made to this is, that the 
term is used in a figurative sense, and denotes that we 
are freed from the power of sin. This is an assump- 
tion, which, as we do not grant it, our opponent is 
bound to prove. Nay, the contrary is evident. The 
price is compared to very precious earthly things, such 
as gold, silver, and jewels, which have always a rela- 
tion to price, strictly so called, (1 Pet. i. 18.) 4. We 
have not only the word Xvrpov, a price of redemption, 
but also the word avriXvrgov, applied to the suffering 
and death of Christ. Nothing can be more express 
than this word avrcAvrpov. It denotes not merely a 
price, but such a price as is perfectly equal to 
the debt which it pays; this is the force of the 
preposition avrl, which here expresses substitution. 
Aristotle uses the same word avnXvrpov, in the 
9th book of his Ethics, and 2d chapter, to denote 
the redemption of a life, by substituting another in 
its room. 

Hence it appears that this redemption is not a mere 
manumission, such as that in which a master, without 
any price, sets free his slaves; nor is it simply an act 
of power, by which captives are rescued from the hand 
of an enemy; nor a bare exchange, such as that of 
prisoners of war. It is a real satisfaction, such as 
a surety makes by paying in full for the debtor] Our 
deliverance, indeed, is procured without any price paid 
on our part, and purely through the free grace and 



36 TUBEETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 



mercy of God* The divine power, too, is displayed 
gloriously in emancipating us from the tyrannical do- 
minion of Satan, over whom Christ obtains a victory 
and triumph.t There is also an exchange in respect 
of Christ, who was substituted in our place, and suf- 
fered the punishment due to us. Yet in relation to 
the justice of God there is a real and perfect satisfac- 
tion made. 

II. The truth of the atonement is also proved from 
those passages of Scripture, in which Chrisl is said to 
have dial not only for our advantage, but also in our 
shod, as a substitute. " For when we were yet without 
strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly— in that 
while we were yet sinners, Christ dud for us"\ "For 
Christ also hath suffered for our sins, the just for the un- 
just ."§ Our reasons for understanding these phrases in 
this sense and none other, are: 1. This is the common 
import of the preposition vnep, (for.) which is used in 
texts, and which, when applied to persons, denotes 
among the Greeks substitution: as in Roumis, v. 7: 

- rcelv for a just man will one die," i. c.. in his 
place; and in Romans, xi. ?>. " avaOma vnep ade/.cpiov," 
" for or in the room of his brethren." 2. It is else- 
where expressed by avrl, in the room of, as in Matt. 

• Rom. iii. 24. Eph. ii. 8, t Col. »• 15. 

X Rom. v. C, 7. § 1 Pet iii. 18. 



ITS TRUTH. 



xx. 28, and by avrikv-pov, a price of redemption, as in 
1 Tim. ii. 6. " Who gave himself a ransom (avriXvTQov) 
for all." Both of these import substitution ; life for 
life, as in the phrase " eye for (avri) eye"* 3. Christ 
is said to have died for us in a manner peculiar to 
himself — a manner in which neither Paul nor Peter 
could be said to die or be crucified for us.t Yet either 
of these might be said to die for our edification and 
confirmation in the faith. Hence the sufferings and 
death of Christ were vicarious ; and in their design 
entirely different from that of the apostles or mar- 
tyrs. Though the apostles may be said to have 
suffered for the Church, yet it does not follow from 
this, that the object of their death was the same with 
that of Christ's. They suffered as martyrs, to edify, 
confirm, and comfort the Church, by bearing testimony 
to the truth of the Christian system; as it is ex- 
pressed by the apostle: "W/iether we be afflicted, it is 
for your consolation ;"% but Christ alone laid down his 
life to redeem the Church. And if we are com- 
manded to lay down our lives for our brethren,! as 
Christ laid down Ids life for us, this means that we 
are qoI to refuse to undergo the danger of death, nay, 
to suffer with firmness even death itself, whenever the 
glory <>!' God, the good of our neighbour, or the edifi- 



■ Matt, t 1 Cor. i. 13. 

.. LB. § 1 John. iii. i:;. 



38 TUR'RETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 



cation of the Church requires it, as was the case with 
the martyrs. Hence, indeed, we may infer that we 
should in this way imitate the example of Christ; hut 
it does not hence follow, that our death for our brcth- 
for the same purposes as Christ's death for us. 
We are u; a ransom for our brother, that 

we may free him from death, as the Psalmist expi 
it in Psalm xiix. 8 : nor by our death can we procure 
his reconciliation with God and purge him from sin— 
a lU. for his people by his death. Thus 

our be compared to that 

f ( fist, bu1 ] ■ Id relation to an example 

of love, a comparison may bul not in 

relation to the merit of s • The particle 

K aOo)g, as, denoti e, nut equality, as may he 

learned from its use in Matt. v. 48: "Be ye perfect, 
even as (/caflwc) your Father in heaven is perfect." 

HI. proof is derived from those Scrip- 

tures in which Christ is said to have, home our sins, and 
ou account of them to have been afflicted, to have 
been wounded, to have died. "He bore our sins in hit 
oxen body on the tree."* This passage i takeu by the 
apostle from the 53d chapter of Isaiah, in which the 
Chaldee Paraphrase and the ancient Je- 

* 1 Pet. ii. 2-1. 



ITS TRUTH. 39 



tlic prophet as treating of Messiah. u He hath borne 
our griefs and carried our sorrows — he was wounded for 
our trans gressio7is, he . I for our iniquities — the 

chasti him — the Lord hath 

laid on him the iniquity (i. c. the punishment) of us 
all — fie shall ,. r sin." 

■ texts, we rea- i 
■ .'. '.■' : — 1. Fro:, i bearing our sins: — though 
to bear and -.wo sometimes figuratively put | 

for taking away and pardoning* yet there is no good j 
hould under.- lam] them in these 
here are most weighty reasons which 
forbid Q3 to depart from the and most 

common signification, according to which, us Sociniis 
.'• to bear sin, is the same 
thing : ! word 

king away 

- • . the won! '~!2D. which signi- 

-• of ;'. bur . is also 

f punish- 

• ■-.. .US IIS 

by the 1 «carer's 
being bruised and . also said to be 

upon him. could be - dd, 

I took upon himself and suffered the punishmenl 
in. 3. Chri fc ma 

f Praclec. cap. 21. 



40 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



down his life an offering for sin, bore sin in the 
manner of a victim; nay, he made himself in reality 
a victim by suffering death and shedding his blood in 
the room of sinners. 4. All things which indicate a 
real satisfaction occur in this portion of Scripture: 
our sins as the moving, the meritorious cause. - fie 
was bruised for our iniquities," v. 4, 5. 6 : the suffering 
of punishment due to sin; "he hath borne our v;rie/s, 
and carried our sorrows," v. 4: the imputation of OUT 
sins to Christ by Cod as a judge ; -the Lord laid on 
all," v. 6: the voluntary under- 
taking of Christ as our surety; -he was oppressed and 
afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth." in complaining 
of his sufferings, or in refusing to hear them. v. 
expiation for sin ami a full payment of the debt ; 
"yet it pleased Hie Lord to bruise him: he hath put 
him l<> grief: '-hen thou sha'l make his soul on offer- 
for si n r ^. 8, LO. Now, with what propriety 
could all these thin-, he affirmed, if Christ laid down 
his life merely to exhibit an example \>f patience ami 
lpve, and not to make satisfaction for sin? 

In Matt. viii. IT. we are, indeed, informed that this 
prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled, when Christ healed 
bodily diseases, which, properly speaking he did not 
bear, hut take away: yet we cannot infer from this, 
that the same thing may be affirmed of sins which 
are the diseases of the mind : lor the diseases of the 
body are to be viewed in a different light from those 



ITS TRUTH. 41 



of the mind. In healing the former, it was not neces- 
Bary that Christ .should himself become sick; it was 
only necessary that he should exercise his power. 
Not so the latter. He must first take them upon 
himself before he could take them away from us. 
Hence he is held forth by the prophet as wounded 
and bruised, which were not necessary to the healing 
of bodily maladies, but to bearing those of the mind 
alone ; from which it is easy to infer what the mind 
of tlie Holy Spirit is in this prophecy, and how it is 
said to have been fulfilled when Christ healed corpo- 
ral diseases. Without doubt, it relates primarily to 
spiritual disease and debility, i. e., to sin, the pun- 
ishment of which was laid upon him, that he might 
Buffer its desert in our room. But bodily infirmities 
and pains are a part of the punishment of sin, and on 
this account, in a secondary and subordinate sense, it 
refer- to them; because Christ had a right to heal 
them. Thus, what the prophet declares in general 
concerning all disease^ Peter applies in particular to 
the diseases of the mind, and Matthew to the discuses 
of the body, not excluding, bu1 rather including, those 
of the mind. He demonstrates thai by removing the 
cause the effect was taken away. Spiritual and 
physical maladies are intimately connected with each 
other; the former draw after them the latter, while 

the latter presuppose the former. Christ is said to 

have borne both, lull in different ways, according to 



42 



TURRETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 



their different natures. B fs he bore only 

icaciously taking them away, not by underc 
them in his own person ; but he bore spiritual . 
in two methods: by suffering them himself, and by 
taking- them away. Nor, if Matthew asserts that 
healed the sick, and thus fulfilled this prophe- 
cy, ma; ightly infer that the Spirit . 
to them alo ! known, that in the 
Script i be accomplished, not 
only when it is completely and ultimately fulfilled, 
also when a partial accomplishment of il La 
. 

re also are to I >red those Scriptures 

which assert that ( 1 hi ' de sin and a curse fdr 

said " to //arc been m<:- : 
an off : 

malediction which the law pro- 
eed,forhim 
he was most holy and supre d by his Father, 

but for us; unless it was ; istituted in our 

■. and taking upon himself that curse which the law 
justly pronounces our sins, in order that he 

might bear it, and by take it awn}? Tims 

a made a bl uring Cor us the remis- 

sion of our sins and a right to eternal life. What 
reference is there here to an example of patience, or 



Gal. Oi. . viii. 9. 



ITS TRUTH. 43 



to a confirmation of doctrine? Is it not most evident 
that there was a real substitution of Christ in our 
room; and that in consequence of this substitution, a 
real satisfaction, expiation or atonement has been 
made, and that this is the doctrine taught by these 
Scriptural phrases? The force of this argument can- 
not be evaded by objecting that Christ is said to have 
been a curse, not on account of having really borne 
the curse of the law, which could not have been laid 
on him, a perfectly blessed and holy person; but be- 
cause he suffered crucifixion, which, under the law, 
was denominated a curse. The very words of the 
apostle, and the redemption from the curse of the law, 
which Christ by his death procured for us, evince the 
futility of the objection. How can he be a curse, and 
that for the express purpose of delivering as fro 1 a the 
i, unless he took it upon himself? It is no solid 
objection to this reasoning, that he is the only-begot- 
ten Son, and the ever-blessed God; for he did not en- 
dure the cur e, in and for himself 'as the Son of God, 
br.l as our surety and on our behalf. I^encc as to his 
person, he is styled " blessed forever," and in his offi- 
cial cl our representative, he is said to have 

suffered the punishment due to our 

Hence we are enabled to understand the force of 
the expression, "he was d Iver or our offences."* 

. iv. 25. 



44 TURBETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

Socinus contends, that all which is hero intended, is, 
that an occasion for the death of Christ was given by 
our offences, or that Christ died only with the view 
that he might, by his example, incline us to Leave olT 
the commission of sin. and render us certain of its 
pardon. All which is Incompatible with the Scri] 
quoted above, which teach us that the meritorious and 
moving cause, tor Christ's 1 > < ■ i 1 1 ^- delivered over to 
death, was our sins, that he might sutler the punish- 
ment due to them and take away their guilt. lie 
is Baid "to have b<cn delivered for our offences" as sacri- 
fices were offered for sin. doubtless, on account of its 
guilt and to take it away. Hence the guilt of our 
sins was the meritorious can-'' el' the death of ChriBt, 
and its final cause or chief end. to expiate anil remove 
this guilt. 

IV. The truth of the atonement is further proved, 
from the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, of which the 
Scriptures so often speak. •• Why should Chrisl be 
so often an<] so expressly called a priest, truly and 
properly a priest, far more excellent than all tlioLovit- 
ical priests, one who by his oblation appeased the 
wrath of God, and obtained eternal salvation foi 
unless because a full expiation for sin has been made 

* Isai. liii. 10. John i. 2'J. Eph. vi. 2. and the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
passim. 



ITS TRUTH. 45 



by his satisfaction, and a more luminous display 
of the truths shadowed forth by the ancient figures? 
As by the sacrifices under the law, doctrines were not 
confirmed, examples of love and obedience were not 
given, no covenant was entered Into, nor could they 
by their own efficacy appease the wrath of God; these 
sacrifices must have been instituted with a primary 
view to represent a real satisfaction, an atoning sacri- 
fice for sin. This is more particularly confirmed: 
1. From the nature of the priesthood which Christ-sus- 
tains. ITo is constituted a priest in things pertaining 
to < rod, to appease' him by an atoning sacrifice. 2. From 
the nature of the victim which is substituted in the 
room of sinners, to bear the punishment of death due 
to them, as evinced by the rite of imposing hands upon 
the head <>!' the offering, and over it making a confes- 
sion of sin. 3. From the threefold effect of the sacri- 
fice: in respeel to God.bythe propitiation of his wrath; 
in respeel to sin, by the expiation and removal of its 
guilt; in respect to man. by the pardon which followed 
from the propitiation of God and the expiation of sin. 
For a person cannot be freed and obtain pardon, with- 
out the substitution of a victim in his room; nor car 
God be app out the shedding of Mood: aor 

can sin be expiated withoul the suffering of punish- 
ment. 

The objections which Volkelius and others oppose 
to this reasoning, do not. in the least, weaken its force. 



2* 



46 



TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



They object: (1.) "That the propitiator 
did not all prefigure the sacrifice of Christ: but the 
annual sacrifice only, which i upon the great 

iation, and which contained no satisfaction; 
don could flow neither from tl 
offered up nor from the person of the chief pri 
The A idgment more depend- 

ence is to be placed than on that of our opponent», 
opposes not one | only, but all the 

sacrifi of Christ, and hem their 

ation.* Neither the perpetual sacrifice o 
wp daily, nor the other propitiatory offerings of 
winch were of a private nature, could refer to any- 
thing else than the oblation of the immaculate Lamb 
of God for us. it is no objection to this view, that 
they v d for individuals, and not for all in 

offered for 
the who] nilied that Christ 

was to make a propitiation for the sins of all his people, 
so those which were offered \"<n- each individual, were 
led to show that every one of Christ's people laden 
with sin. should seek and obtain reconciliation through 
the offering of Christ. Further, although those 
fices did not, in the sight of God, contain a satisfaction 
properly so called: because the soul of man is of too 
exalted a value to be purchased with the blood of bulls 



Heb. vii. 27. aud x. 4, 5, 11. 



ITS TRUTH. 47 



or of goats: yet a typical, ceremonial satisfaction, 
pertaining to the purity of the flesh, was made by them,* 
a satisfaction, which by the appointment of God was to 
be attributed, neither to the victims, nor to the officiat- 
ing priest separately, but jointly to both. 

Another objection is that: (2.) " An expiation is 
nothing else than an entire deliverance from the do- 
minion of sin, which deliverance cannot be in the way 
of merit attributed to the death of Christ, but only 
in the way of example and declaratively." In this 
objection, the cause is confounded with the effect. 
The office of the judge, who releases the prisoner, is 
confounded with the office of the surety, who pays the 
ransom. The judge sets the prisoner at liberty, while 
the prisoner, or some one in his place, pays the price 
of his redemption. Hence it follows that the purging 
of guilt and the removal of the accusation are effected 
by the suffering of punishment either in the person of 
the accused, or in that of another. If all the end 
iy the death of Christ was to declare that 
an expiation was to be made, it effected nothing more 
than the victims under the law, which might, nay did 
I the same thing; yet the Apostle Paul expressly 
declares \ hat they could not make expiation for sin. 
If there were any propriety in this objection, the ex- 
piation might be attributed no less to Christ's, re-ur- 

ix. 13. 



48 TURRETTIX OX THE ATONEMENT. 



rection than to his death, which the Scripture nowhere 
does. Besides, declaration respects men, expiation 
God; that belongs rather to his prophetical office, this 
to his priestly. Though the work of expiation may 
sometimes be attributed t<> God the Father* who 
never makes satisfaction. \ et we cannot justly infer that 
this expiation is of the same nature with that of Christ; 
because, according to the different nature of the subjects 
to whom the expiation is attributed, it is to b<> differ- 
ently understood. For God the Father to expiate is 
to a.lmitofan expiation made by a priest, which is done 
by pardon and acceptance. Bui for a priesl and victim 
to expiate, is to effect reconciliation meritoriously by 
the shedding of blood and vicarious suffering. 

It is further objected that: (3.) "Sacrifices were 
offered up only for smaller offences, such as were com- 
mitted through ignorance or error: while for more 
aggravated, wilful transgressions, there were Q0 sacri- 
fices instituted: but that Christ died for all sins with- 
out distinction," This objection is grounded on an 
assumption which we do not admit. 11 is indeed ex- 
pressly contrary to Scripture. On the great day of 
annual atonement, the goal is said to bear all the ini- 
quities of the children of Israel. Sacrifices are else- 
where said to be offered up not for those sins only 
which are committed through error, but for those 

* Deut. xxi. 8. 



ITS TRUTH. 



which are committed willingly, and which are ex- 
pressed by ytP3, D^s, KC371, bra, and similar words.* 
And though the priest is said to have offered for 
the errors (ayvorjfiaTuv) of the people, t yet it does 
riot follow that wilful sins are excluded; for the word 
ayvorjfxa, which signifies properly an error of the mind, 
Lb used to denote every kind of sin, because every sin 
proceeds from an error of the mind. Hence wicked 
men arc called fools, avorp-oc. The Septuagint renders 
j?t?2 and £3WX by the Greek word ayvoia, and these 
Hebrew words signify wickedness and rebellion. 
For some aggravated crimes, such as murder, idolatry, 
adultery, etc., we do not read of any sacrifices having 
been particularly instituted; because God determined 
to punish them by die sword of the civil magistrate 
with capital punishment; and those who sinned thus 
hud no need of this remedy, as their death was a satis- 
faction to the public. 

V. Again, we argue for (Ik- doctrine of the atonc- 
nieiit. from mi,- /v com iliation with God, which Christ, by 
his death has procured for us. Since that reconcilia- 
tion rapposes the making up of the In-each winch sin 
had produced between God and his creatures, this 
could not be effected without the removal of a two- 
fold barrier, by a satisfaction. On the part of God, 

•Lev. xvi. 21, 22. fHeb. i.\. 6, 7. 



50 TURRETTIX OX THE ATONEMENT. 



his justice must bo satisfied, and on the part of man, 
the guilt of sin must be removed by suffering the 
punishment due to it. The Apostle Paul, everywhere, 
teaches us that Christ procured for us such a recon- 
ciliation.""' 

The substance of the objections which our opponents 
offer against this argument is. that " this reconciliation 
is effected by our conversion to God. and not at all by 
appeasing the divine wrath, because God is not said 
reconciled to us, but we to God; nay. he is 
said to procure for us this reconciliation, which is not 
the part of an enemy, but of a friend." This capital 
error of our opponents is refuted by many powerful 
arguments. 1. The Scriptui of a double en- 

mity and reconciliation, not only on the pari of man, 
who by sin is become ahater of God,+ ao enemy in 
his mind by wicked works;t but also on the pari of 
God, by his wrath which is revealed from i. 
against all iniquity.§ Hence men are by nature chil- 
dren of wrath. God is said to be of purer eyes than 
to behold iniquity.1 He hates all work'.-- of ini- 
quity.** Now as there is an alienation on both 
so there must be on each side a reconciliation: on the 
part of God, by a turning away of his wrath; on the 



* Rom. t 


. 10. 


2 Cor. v. 18, 19. 


Col. 


. 20, 


21 


ftc. 






f Rom. i 


21. 




JCol. 


.21. 






§ 


Rom. i 


18. 


|| Eph. ii. 


5. 




r Hab. 


i. 13. 








Psalm 


v.5. 



T 'T:I. 51 



part of man. by a conversion to God: all which the 
Apostle clearly teaches. (2 Cor., v. 18, 19.) In conse- 
quence of God's reconciling us to himself through 
Christ. Paul shows that the apostles, in the name of 
Christ, exhorted sinners to be reconciled to God. 
2. If reconciliation were nothing but conversion, then 
it should rather be said to proceed from Christ's holy 
life, than from his bloody death. On this ground, no 
reason can be offered why the Apostle should propose 
sanctiJication as the end of our reconciliation * for 
nothing can be the medium and end of itself. This 
would be to say that the end of reconciliation was 
reconciliation. 3. It is such a reconciliation as is 
effected by not imputing to us our sins, on account of 
their having been imputed to Christ, who was made 
sin for us;t a reconciliation effected by the substitu- 
tion of Christ in our place, that he might die for us: 
collect from the comparison instituted between 
him and the man who would dare to die for a good 

: which implies a proper satisfaction, not a sim- 

ion. 4. This reconciliation is effected "by 

making peace tJirovgh the blobd of Ids cross ''^ and by 

an ato rifice, iXa<j(iog.\\ All these denote not 

conversion; bul primarily, the appeasing of the di- 
vine wrath, whicl I by (he death of a victim. 



•CoLi. 22. fRom. v. 

:. -in. || l John, ii. :'. 



TUPJIETTIX OX THE ATONEMENT. 



Though the Scriptures commonly speak of our being 
reconciled to God. rather than of God's being recon- 
ciled to us, because those who offend have need to be 
reconciled to him who is offended: yet this, so far 
from excluding the reconciliation of God to us. in- 
cludes it: because there can be no offence, unless 
justice is injured; and this injury must be repaired 
before God can reconcile men to himself, and admit 
them to hold communion with him. God's procuring 
this reconciliation tor us. is no evidence thai he has 
not been angry with US, or that he was at peace and 
in a -tatc of friendship with us. It only proves that 
God, moved towards us with a love of benevolence, 
decreed to procure tor as a reconciliation; not that he 
was forthwith to he deemed appeased and reconciled, 
but only that lie might become so, while yet. in the 
mean time, he could not hut lie offended at our sins. 

In vain is it ph-adcd by our opponents, that 
" Christ is said to be our propitiation and expiatory 
sacrifice; not that he may reconcile an angry God to 
us. l»ut that he may testify that God is already ap- 
peased and by no means angry with us." The blood 
of Christ was not shed to prove the remission of sin, 
but to obtain it. as was the case in the' propitiatory 
sacrifices under the Old Testament dispensation; oth- 
erwise, there was no need that Christ should die and 
shed his blood, when the truth of the remission could 
be as well attested by his life and doctrine. N<* 



ITS TRUTH. 53 



because the covering of the ark is improperly and 
declaratively called iXaorrjpiov, or an expiation, be- 
cause by it God declared his benevolence towards his 
people, are we thence to infer that it was of the 
same nature with the expiation made by Christ. The 
making of expiation is attributed to Christ not so 
much passively as actively, and in the strictest sense 
of the word. What Avas only typically and symboli- 
cally shadowed forth in the mercy-scat and by the 
sprinkling of the blood of victims, Christ truly and 
properly effected by the shedding of his own blood. 
Again: though the application and fruit of this atone- 
ment is imparted to us through the medium of his con- 
tinual intercession in heaven, yet we may not hence infer 
that lie lias made it in heaven only. The passage in 
Heb. ii. 1*1 docs not relate to this; for it is not there 
saiil that he makes reconciliation for the sins of the 
people in heaven, but only that he must be made like 
unto his brethren in all -tilings, that he may be a 
faithful high priest, in things pertaining to God, and 
in this character make reconciliation, which he had 
dun'' by his death and suffering, as is intimated in 
the following verse. 

VI. The doctrine of the atonemenl is also eon- 
firmed by the nature and circumstances of Christ's 
passion, ;\- well ;.-■ by the kind of death which he suf- 
fered: in ;,|| which we have everything requisite to a 



54 TURBETTIN OX TnE ATONEMENT. 

full and perfect satisfaction. Let as consider the 
essence and kind of the punishment. The deatli 
which he endured was not a common death: but vio- 
lent and most bitter, inflicted as a punishment, and 
accursed of God himself: one in which he suffered 
the greatest ignominy and experienced the severest 
pains in his most holy body. His soul was 
with the most appalling terror and sorrow, with such 
fear and anguish that an angel was sent to minister 
comfort to him. Sweat flowed from the pores of his 
body like great drop- of blood, and '-he offered up 
prayers and supplications, with strong crying and 
tears to him who was able to save him."* With a 
voice of deepest sadness, he complained that he was 
forsaken by God the Father, though not by a dissolu- 
tion of the union, nor by withdrawing a participation 
of holiness, nor by withho pporting power. 

yet by withholding from him the beatific vision, by 
ading the sense and fruition of full felicity. 
How shall we find an adequate cause for all 
sufferings in a perfectly holy person, unless by admit- 
ting that avenging justice demanded from Ch 
full atonement for our sins? Or shall we say that 
Christ was of more feeble mind and poss 
heroic firmness, than innumerable martyrs, who have 
suffered the same most painful death of the i 

* Hcb. v. 7. 



ITS TRUTH. 



nay, if possible, torments more intolerable, and yet 
with unshaken fortitude, with tlie greatest alacrity, 
and without any indications of grief or terror ? Such 
blasphemy shocks the cars of the Christian. Though 
the time of Christ's sufferings was but finite in dura- 
tion, yet, in consequence of the dignity of the sufferer, 
it was equal in value to infinite duration of torment. 
The law, indeed, demands that the person who sins 
shall suffer; but the Gospel, through the fatherly 
kindness of God, declares it meet that there shall be 
a substitution: that it suffices to punish sin, and let 
the sinner go free. 

VII. A final argument is drawn from the Perfections 
of God. 13y the atonement we have an astonishing- 
display of the divine .Mercy, which is so great that 
God spared not his own Son, that he might spare us. 
It asserts the claims of Justice, which, that it might 
remain unimpeachable, demanded even the blood of 
the Son of God. It gloriously exhibits the divine 
Wisdom, which found oul an admirable plan of recon- 
ciling mercy with justice, and untied a knot which 
otherwise could never have been loosed; a plan by 
which the conscience of man, alarmed with a pene- 
trating Bense of sin, judgment, and the divine 

:, is rendered peaceful and serene. Take away 
die atonement, and what becomes of the Truth of God, 
which so uniformly denounces death and a i 



56 TUKKETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

against sinners? What becomes of justice, which not 
only acquits the guilty and convicted sinner without 
inflicting upon him the deserved punishment, bul also 
bestows on him rewards most honourable? Besides, 
by denying the atonement, the following absurdities 
arc unavoidable:— 1. That our redemption may be 
attributed no less to the death of the apostle 
martyrs than to the death of Christ; since, by their 
death and sufferings, they have given Btrong testi- 
mony in favour of the doctrines of the Gospel, and 
have sel before as in their lives illustrious examples 
of patience and obedience. 'J. Thai Chrisl Baved us 
rather by his Life and miracles than by Ids death, 
.-'nice the promulgation of his doctrines and the i 
pie of his life were much more plain exhibitions of 
truth than his death affords. 3. The priestly office is 
altogether taken away from this world, and eon- 
founded with his prophetical and kingly offices. 
4. The saints under the Old Testament were not 
saved by Christ; because they had not the benefit of 
his example, nor did they hear him preaching doe- 
trine-. 

We now proceed to remove the difficulties which 
have been raised. 

Though the word satisfaction is not expressly 
in the Scriptures, yet, what is quite sufficient, there 
are other words used which are altogether equivalent 
to it. and which either have no meaning or else mean 



ITS TRUTH. 57 



that real satisfaction for which we contend. Such 
are the words a^oXv-pcootg, the redemption of a cap- 
tive, by making - a payment; avnXvrgov, a price of re- 
demption; ikaofiog, a propitiation; ti/j,tj, a price of 
punishment; tcarapa, a curse; dvoia, a sacrifice; ttqoo- 
<f>opa, an offering; and many others of the same im- 
port, which we have mentioned above. 

As Christ sustains a twofold relation to believers- 
one in the character of their Surety, bound to satisfy 
justice in their behalf; the other in the character of 
their Head and Lord, operating in them by the ani- 
mating and directing influence of his Spirit — so he 
had a twofold 'end in his death and sufferings: one, 
the payment of a price of redemption for us to jus- 
tice; the other, to set before us an example worthy 
of imitation. Hence his sufferings may be viewed 
either as satisfactory or as exemplary. Though the 
Bufferings of Christ are proposed*" to us as an* exam- 
ple, and his death as that which we should imitate by 
dying for our brethren, at his command;! yet we arc 
not hence to infer thai by his death he made no real 
satisfaction; for the mentioning of the one end does 

mil exclude bill supposes the other. 

There is a wide difference between a payment made 
by a debtor in his own person, and a payment made 
by a surety. As to the reality of payment there is no 

. ii. 21. t 1 John, iii. 10. 



58 TURRETTIX OX THE ATONEMENT. 

difference in the eye of the law, but in relation to grace 
there is a striking difference. When a debtor pays 
out of his own purse his debts, it cannot be said that 
the creditor iias forgiven him the dele, or shown him 
favour : but if the debt has been paid by another and 
that other has been found out by the creditor, then 
grace may be said to have been shown. - 
and remission are inconsistent with each other, when 

same thing, 

■ ■Hi things. 
its object, remission man for its object. .- 
is made by Christ to God for man, and yet man is 
freely pardoned. Justice and mercy kiss each other* 
Justice is exerci puted t<» Christ, 

ami mercy, free and sovereign mercy, is shown ■■- 
ners. The pardon granted to us is entirely of •. 
while full satisfaction is demanded of the surety. 
Nothing i- demi . full payment having i 

,. 

that he 
in in whi< 

makes the satisfaction ; 

in of God. notas i tri . Thus it is no 
in the same character nor in relation, tl 

and receh 

mediator, and n id the 

. It is indeed absurd to suppose thi 
person should make satisfaction to himself, when the 



ITS TRUTH. 59 
. 

subject treated of is of a private nature, by which a ; 
private loss is compensated or money that is due paid, 
for in that case the person would take of his own and 
with it pay himself. But when we speak of a public j 
satisfaction, by which a public injury is repaired, it is j 
not absurd to say that a judge who has violated the j 
law, may make satisfaction to himself as judge by suf- j 
j. cither in his own person or in the person of j 
another, that punishment which the law denounces ; 
and thus it is in the work of Redemption. 

Christ did not suffer eternal death but a death of j 
days only, and yet he fully paid the debt of ever- i 
I punishment which we owed. His, which was 
one of finite duration, wa^ equivalent to an everlasting 
death suffered by us, because of the infinite dignity of 
his person. 1 1 is wer rings not of a mere 

man. but of the true God, who purchased the Church 
with . mce what was deficient in dura- 

supplied by the divinity of the sufferer, which 
infinite importance to a temporary passion. 
Y't ■ hence infer, that as the person a 

rop of his sufficientfor 

our redemption. The t of Christ might 

lue considered merely in relation to the 

infinite exaltation of liim \\ ho i offered ; ye1 death only 

. of 1 he judge by 



60 TURRETTIX OX THE ATONEMENT. 

whose sentence it was inflicted. The dignity of the 
person increases the dignity of the punishment en- 
dured — the more exalted the person is, so much the 
heavier is the suffering which he undergoes : yet noth- 
ing but thai species of punishment which the law de- 
nounces! can satisfy its claims upon the guilty. Death 
and death alone could fulfil the demands of law and 
justice. 

It was not necessary, when Christ was suffering the 
punishment due to sin. that he should suffer that 
despair and gnashing of teeth, which are a part of the 
punishment of the damned ; for these are not essential 
to the punishment which the judge inflicts or which 
the surety mu I bear. They are mere circumstan- 
ces, which arise from the character of the persons of 
the damned, who, when they find that their tor- 
ments arc overwhelming and eternal, sink into 
utter despair and gnashing of teeth. This could 
not be so with Christ, who in the midst of his greatest 
agonies, had full assurance of deliverance and a resur- 
rection from the tomb, and hence when encompassed 
by tortures the most excruciating, always manifested 
his faith in God— " My God! My God!" are his 
words. 

Though a death of infinite value was due for every 
individual sinner, yet such a death as Christ's is quite 
sufficient for the redemption of the whole elect world. 
A penal satisfaction is not of the same nature with a 



ITS TRUTH. 61 



pecuniary payment, which is valued only by the amount 
paid, without regard to the person who pays : and 
hence can be of avail to none but the individual for 
whom the payment is made. But penal satisfaction is 
estimated by the dignity of the person who makes it, 
and is increased in worth in proportion to his dignity, 
and hence avails for many as well as for one. Money 
paid by a king is indeed of no more avail in the dis- 
charge of a debt, than money paid by a slave : but the 
life of a king is of more value than the life of a vile 
slave, as the life of King David was thought of more 
worth than that of half the Israelitish army.* In this 
way Christ alone is more excellent than all men togeth- 
er. The dignity of an infinite person swallows up all 
the infinities of punishment due to us : they sink into it 
and are lost. Besides, it is no new thing that what 
i- necessary for one should be amply sufficient for 
many. One sun is necessary to the illumination of an 
individual, and yet the same sun illuminates the whole 
human family. One victim was sufficient for the priest 
and all the people, and yet it would have been requi- 
site for "lie. Although there were as many atone- 

:ii- necessary as there were Israelites, yet the one 

greal annual expiatory sacrifice atoned for the sins of 
all the people, because it was so offered for the whole 
congregation as that by divine appointment it availed 

* 2 Sam. xviii. 3. 



62 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

for the case of each singly. On this subject the Scrip- 
tures are so express, that no one, unless he have the har- 
dihood to contradict the Holy Spirit, can deny it. " The 
Lord laid on him the iniquities of us all."" Jf one died for 
ail.f " By one offering of himself he hath forever perfected 
them that are sanctified. y X What do all these Scriptures 
teach, unless that one death of Christ is sufficient to 
make a full atonement for all the elect, in the same 
manner as the disobedience of Adam made many sin- 
ners?§ One cannot satisfy for many, when he and they 
are of the same rank. One plebeian cannot satisfy for 
many plebeians : but one prince may satisfy for many 
plebeians. If this is admitted among creatures who 
are all finite and mortal, how much more between 
creatures and the Creator, between whom there is an 
infinite distance ? 

The rule which is laid down in Ezekiel 18 : 20, " the 
soul that siiuuth. it shall die." cannot be understood as 
absolute and universal, for so all imputation of -in 
would be barred, which yet the Scriptures teach by 
many examples. It must be referred to the ordinary 
dispensations of Providence, and not to an extraor- 
dinary dispensation of grace. Or it may relate to a 
particular providence towards the Jews, to whom the 
Lord speaks in such a way as to close their mouth, 



* Isai. liii. 6. f 2 Cor. v. 14. $ Heb. x. 14. 

§ Rom. v. 18, 19. 



i! 



ITS TRUTH. 63 



and prevent them from complaining that they had un- 
deservedly suffered punishment on account of the sins 
of their fathers ; and not to the general government 
of men, in which God declares that he will visit the 
iniquities of the fathers upon the children until the 
third and fourth generation.* 

So far is the doctrine of the atonement from open- 
ing a door to impiety and spreading a couch on which 
spiritual sloth may repose in security, that it is the 
most efficacious means of holiness, and the death of sin 
itself, which is, among others, one of the ends that 
Christ assigns for his death — " that being dead unto 
sin, we may live unto righteousness ; that henceforth 
we may no more live unto ourselves, but to him who 
died for us and was raised again for our justification." 
Sec the 6th chapter of. Romans, for the manner in 
which the Apostle Paul reasons on this subject ; also 
Titus, ii. 14, and 1 Pet. ii. 24. 

* Ex. xx. 5. 



CHAPTER III. 
<Dn tijc perfection of tlje Atonement. 

Statement of the Question-.— Against Romanists:- Aoi 

MINIANS: IX ITSELF. PROOFS: I. Tin; D] ■ BREST* 

Person. U. The Oneness ot ms Offering. [II. The Approval 
of God the Judge. IV. i,. . Hexce F0LL0Wa TH8 

Overthrow 01 the Romish Dogma of Supplementary Satisi u - 

TIONS; AND OF Till: ArMLMAN SCHEME OF AN IMPERFECT ATOJ - 
GRACIOUSLY v. ! BPTED IS IF COMPLETE. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.'— 

That the Apostles suffered run the Church; That Paw, 
oomfeeted Christ's Si fferings; That Sins ire broken off by 
Repentance and I That Believers still suffer in 

this Life;- Thai cable to Death; ThatJi dqment 

begins at hi.; House ... God; That Jewish Salyts, mi oh 

FORGIVEN, YET HAD TO OFFER SACRIFICES j AND THAT " BY MERCY 

A.\n Truth Iniquity is pi 

In the preceding chapter we reasoned againsl the 
followers of Socinus. In this chapter we contend for 
a doctrine that is denied by the Romanists. They 
indeed pretend to hold the unity and perfection of the 
satisfaction of Christ, and often exclaim that greal 
injustice is done them, when J hey are charged with 
maintaining that " Christ by his sufferings did not make 
a full and complete satisfaction for our sins;"* while- in 

* Bellarrniue, Look II. concerning Indulgences, chapter 14. 



ITS PERFECTION. 65 



reality they, in many ways, weaken and overturn this 
doctrine, by maintaining that it must be confined to 
sins committed before baptism and to the pollution of 
sin: but that it does not extend to punishment either 
temporal or eternal. 

In order to ascertain distinctly the question, we 
observe, that a satisfaction made to God is of a nature 
different from a satisfaction made to man. Among 
men, satisfactions are of two kinds. One is private, 
and is called a reparation ; the other public, and is 
called canonical, because prescribed by the ancient 
canons of the Church. Satisfaction of the latter kind 
is very often demanded by civil and ecclesiastical 
courts, for the reformation of offenders and the re- 
moval of scandals. In treating of the satisfaction 
made to God, we speak strictly concerning the Xvtqov, 
the ] trice of redemption, by which Christ, as our 
surety, atoned for our transgressions. This is by 
Romanists in part ascribed to certain meritorious, 
expiatory works, by which they pretend to atone for 
their own sins and for those of others. It is of the 
atonemenl for sin and satisfaction to justice, which 
Chrisl made, that wo arc to treat in this chapter. The 
point in controversy is not whether the satisfaction 
of Chri i bars all human satisfactions, public and 
canonical, or private, which are imposed upon offend- 
ers for their correction, and fco remove scandals from 
the Church. We admil thai these were, with pro- 



66 TUBBETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

priety, often demanded under the Old Testament 
dispensation, and may yet be laudably exacted. But 
we inquire, whether, besides the satisfaction made by 
Christ, other satisfactions for sin are to be made to 
God, and should be imposed upon the saints? Here 
we and our opponents are at issue. They affirm that 
such additional satisfactions are to be made by the 
saints themselves; while we maintain that they are 
not only useless, but contrary to the Scriptures. 

The infliction of chastisements on the people of God 
when they go astray — chastisements which are of a 
medicinal or corrective character, such as are iuflictcd 
upon children in their father's house — forms no part 
of this controversy. We cheerfully admit that God, 
for valuable purposes, exercises his people with Buch 
wholesome discipline But does the atonement of 
Christ exclude penal expiatory sufferings on the part 
ofthesaints; sufferings designed, nol as proofs of their 
piety, or to heal their backslidings, but as a satisfac- 
tion to avenging justice: not inflicted by God as a 
father and through parental love, but decreed by God 
as a judge; sufferings which the law denounces against 
the wicked? Our adversaries affirm that the atone- 
ment docs not exclude such sufferings. We maintain 
that it does. The Church of Rome teaches, that 
though the satisfaction of Christ is of infinite value, 
yet that it is not so full and ample, but that various 
atonements are to be made bv believers in their own 



ITS PERFECTION. 67 



persons. These, they say, are necessary, if not on 
account of their guilt and liability to eternal punish- 
ment, -which they admit are taken away by Christ, yet 
to save them from temporal punishment. Hear what 
they say: "If any one shall affirm that, on account 
of the merits of Christ, there is no necessity that we 
should make any satisfaction to God, through tempo- 
ral punishments inflicted by Christ and patiently 
borne by us, or through punishments enjoined by the 
priest, not voluntarily undertaken — such as penances, 
prayers, fastings, alms, and other pious exercises — 
and shall further say that the new life only is the 
best penitence, let that man be accursed."* 

The Remonstrants,! or Arminians, endeavour not 
a little to destroy the perfection of the atonement. 
Though they have not yet been so bold as, with the 
disciples of Socinus, to reject the atonement entirely, 
yel they make every effort in their power to diminish 
ite efficacy and fulness. They maintain that the satis- 
faction of Christ was accepted by God, not on ac- 
count of its own dignity, but merely through grace; 
l!i;it it was not a real, but a nominal satisfaction. 
The substance of the doctrine which they teach on 
this head is, that God forbore to punish after the 

* Council of Trent, section 4, cap. 8, canon ] 3. 

t A name given to Arminians, on account of the remonstrance 
which they presented to the Synod of Dort agairat the act by which 
their ten» I were condemned. 



68 TURRETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

death of Christ, not because satisfaction had been 
truly rendered to his justice, but because lie was gra- 
ciously pleased to admit the satisfaction, notwith- 
standing its imperfection, as altogether sufficient. 

The doctrine for which we contend is, that Christ 
hath so perfectly satisfied divine justice for all our 
Bins, by one offering of himself: and not only for our 
guilt, but also for both temporal and eternal punish- 
ment, that henceforth there are no more propitiatory 
offerings to be made for sin; and that though, for the 
promotion of their penitence and sanctification, God 
often chasti.-es his people, yet no satisfaction is to he 
made by them either in this or a future state of ex- 

Such is tlie perfection of the atonement, that it cor- 
responds to the justice of God revealed in the Word, 
to the demands of the law, and to the miseries and 

3ities of those for whom it was made. Had it 
been in its own nature deficient, and derived its suffi- 
ciency only from God's acceptance of it through mere 
grace, then the victims under the law might have pos- 

i equal efficacy in making atonement for sin, 
contrary to Heb. x. 4. Its perfection is derived from 
its own intrinsic fulness of merit. It is perfect: 
(1.) In respect to parts; because it satisfied all the 
demands which the law makes upon as, both in rela- 
tion to the obedience of life and the sufferi. 
death. By enduring the punishments due to us, it 



ITS PERFECTION. 69' 



has freed us from death and condemnation. And by 
its meritorious efficacy, it has reconciled God the 
Father to us and has acquired for us a title to eter- 
nal life. (2.) It is perfect in degree; for Christ has 
not only done and suffered all that which the law 
claims of us, but all this in a full and perfect degree; 
so that nothing more, in this respect, can possibly be 
desired. The perfection in degree is derived from 
the infinite dignity of the person who suffered and 
the severity of the punishment exacted. (3.) Hence fol- 
lows the perfection in its effects. In respect of God, it 
has effected an entire reconciliation with him;* in rela- 
tion to sin, it has wrought full expiation and pardon ;t 
and in relation to believers, its effects are perfection 
in holiness and complete redemption, both as to de- 
li vorance from death, and as to a title to life and its 
ion.! 
We now offer the proofs which establish this view 
of the atonement. 

I. The dignity of Christ's person, which is not only 
of immaeulate purity, but also truly divine; a person 
in which all fulness dwells. § In Christ's person 
there is a fulness of divinity, a fulness of office, a 
fulness of merit and graces. Who, then, can doubt 

* Bom. v. in, and 2 Cor. v. 18. 

| Eph. i. 7. Beb. i. 3, and i.v. 2G. 

' Heb. i.v. 12, and x. 11. § Col. i. 19. 

3* 



70 



TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



but that the satisfaction which he lias made is one 
of infinite value and efficacy, and therefore of such 
fulness and all-sufficiency, that nothing can be added 
to it? For though Christ's human nature which was 
the instrument in the obedience and sufferings, was 
finite, yet this does nol lessen the value of the satis- 
faction, because it derives its perfection from the 
divine person of Christ, to which all his actions must 
be attributed; as he is the person who obeyed and 
Buffered. 

II. Our view is also established by the Ojicness 
of C/iris/'s Offering. Why does the Apostle Paul 
asserl that Christ has once offered himself for us* 
and that by one offering of himself lie hath forever 
perfected them that are Banctified? Why does he 
always set before as the obedience of Christ alone as 
the ground of our justification, unless this obedience 
is full and complete? As a repetition of the same 
offering argues it- imperfection, so, on the other hand, 
an offering's having ben but once made, necessarily 
import- its plenitude and the full accomplishment 
of its object. 

III. The Perfection of the Atonement is confirmed 
by the Approbation of God as Judge. If God declares 



II. b. vii. 9 and 10. 



ITS PERFECTION. 71 



that lie is perfectly satisfied, let no one dare to say- 
that the satisfaction is imperfect. The question is, 
whether the supreme judge, who demands the satisfac- 
tion, approves of and receives it as altogether suffi- 
cient. That the atonement has been approved and 
accepted by God, is established, not only by the ap- 
pointment of Christ to the mediatorial office, of whom 
the Father often declares that he is his beloved Son, 
in whom he is well pleased; but especially by his res- 
urrection from the dead, which is irresistible evidence 
both of his divinity and of the perfection of the atone- 
ment.* Unless Christ had satisfied to the uttermost, 
can we believe that God the judge, whose inexorable 
justice demands full payment, would have freed him, 
and have exalted him to that supreme glory, which 
was the reward of his sufferings ?t Would the cred- 
itor free the surety from prison before he had paid 
the full debt? Could Christ, when he had underta- 
ken to pay to divine justice the debts which man 
owed, be set free, until he had to the full redeemed 
the debt? Seeing, then, that Christ has gloriously 
arisen, being raised by the power of the Father, 
there is no room left for doubt respecting the per- 
fection of the satisfaction, the full payment of the 
price of redemption ; of the full discharge of 
which, the Father has given us such indubitable 
testimony. 

♦Rom. i. i. t Phil. ii. 9. 



TUKRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



IV. The effects which ore produced by the atone- 
ment prove its entire sufficiency. Why are our recon* 
ciliation with God and the appeasing of his wrath; the 
expiation and pardon of sin, and this not partial, 
but full and complete; and our redemption and glori- 
fication, ail attributed to the death and obedience of 
Christ,* unless his atonement was full and com- 
plete? A perfect effect requires a perfect cause to 
produce it. 

The doctrine thus established overthrows at once 
the Romanist dogmas of the sacrifice of the Mass, of hu- 
man merits in this life and of Purgatorial expiations 
hereafter. For if these are allowed, it follows either 
that Christ's satisfaction is inadequate, or else that 
God unjustly exact- a double satisfaction for the same 
sins. 

In vain do our opponent- contend, " that by plead- 
in-- for satisfactions to I"' made by the saints, they do 
not derogate from the infinity of Christ, nor from his 
satisfaction: Bince they make all their virtue and effi- 
cacy to depend upon the atonement of Christ, who not 
only has satisfied for us, but also gives us the power 
to satisfy for ourselves; and since they do not esteem our 
good works as atonements to be associated with that 
of Christ, and as of the same exalted nature, hut 



* See Col. i. 20: 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 John, i. 7: Rom. iii. 24. and v. 10; 
Heb. i. 3. and ix. 11. and x. 11. 



ITS PEBFECTIOX. 73 



inferior and subordinate." They assume what they 
ought to prove. We do not grant that Christ gives 
us any power to atone for ourselves. Such a supposi- 
tion receives no countenance from Scripture, and is 
contrary to the very nature of an atonement. It 
is one thing to make satisfaction, another to give 
the power to make satisfaction. They are indeed 
utterly inconsistent with each other. If Christ has 
made a complete satisfaction, why is any other de- 
manded ? Where the primary cause is solitary, no 
co-operative or subordinate causes are admissible. So 
far is this doctrine of our opponents from advancing 
the glory of Christ, that it in reality, by resorting to 
other grounds of salvation than those afforded by him, 
offers an indignity to him and his atonement. What 
he, as our Redeemer, has engaged to accomplish, they 
pretend to effect, at least in part, by other agents. 
And though in the application of this redemption, men 
are bound to contribute by their efforts as fellow- 
workers with God, yet they are unable to co-operate 
with him in its acquisition. 

Equally futile is their reasoning, when they resort 
to the "distinction between sin and punishment, con- 
tending that though Christ has satisfied for our sin, lie 
has not fully satisfied for our punishment; or if for 
eternal punishment, at least not for temporal, which 
lini-f be suffered by i ! "' saints themselves, eitherin the 
presenl or :i future Btate." Because tin 1 remission of 



7-i TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

siii on account of the satisfaction made by Christ is 
perfectly complete: "there is no condemnation to them 
who are in Christ Jesus;" and in consequence of his 
atonement, their justification is perfect, and in due 
time they shall obtain fult glorification.* Besides, the 
distinction thus made between sin and its punishment 
is absurd, for there is a necessary connection between 
sin and Buffering. Sin is tin 1 cause and suffering the 
effect; take away the cause, and theeffeel is necessarily 
destroyed. Remission of sin is nothing but a deliver- 
ance from all punishment, which cannot be justly in- 
flicted where there is no transgression. Would it be 
just to demand the payment of a debt which is already 
either paid or remitted? 

They also assert, "that Christ, in a limited sense, 
make- satisfaction for temporal punishment, in and by 
us." 1. This assertion i- rash, having no countenance 
from Scripture. -. li is dangerous, associating men 
with Christ in making satisfaction, and thus taking a 
part of the work of redemption out of his hands: for 
redemption and satisfaction arc words of similar im- 
port, there being no other way to redeem, but by ren- 
dering satisfaction. 3. It is false and contrary to 
Scripture, which asserts, that Christ by himself hath 
satisfied once for sin, and that there is no further sat- 
isfaction to be made by others. 

* Horn. viii. 0. 



ITS PERFECTION. 75 



The view which we have given of the perfection of 
the atonement prostrates the Arminian doctrine of 
nominal atonement. When a full payment is made, 
there is no room for the exercise of grace in accepting 
what was no more than nominal. In making pay- 
ments grace is not considered, nor merely the dignity 
of him who pays, but also the value of the thing given, 
or its equality to the debt. This is confirmed from 
Rom. viii. 3, where Christ is said to have been sent, 
that all righteousness might be fulfilled. Christ ful- 
filled all righteousness, or satisfied all the demands of 
the law, by doing what we ourselves were not able to 
do, on account of the weakness of the law. Now if, 
by the satisfaction of Christ, the demands of the law 
are fulfilled in us, this satisfaction must equal the 
claims of the law. Farther, an imperfect atonement 
graciously accepted, we cannot admit, for Christ took 
upon himself* all the punishment which was due to 
us, even that which was the most grievous, the curse 
of the law itself. f Finally, if God might have accept- 
ed of any imperfect satisfaction, it was unnecessary 
thai Chrisl should stand as our surety, and be exposed 
to extreme tortures and a most painful death; for sat- 
isfaction could have been received from any other 
man. 

We shall now proceed to remove objections. An 

* Is», liii. 6. 7,8. t Gal. ilL 13. 



76 TUBBETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

objection is drawn from those expressions of Scripture, 
where the apostles are said to suffer for the Church. 
But it is one thing to suffer for the Church, in order to 
purchase her by paying a price of redemption, and I 
another to suffer persecution and death for the purpose 
of consoling and confirming the people of God, bypla- I 
cing before them an example of patience and obedience, j 
When Paul says thai he suffers for the Church or for ' 
the body of Christ* it is not in the former Bense, for 
he elsewhere di nies thai any one except Christ alone 
is crucified for us;t but in the latter, as he himself ' 
teaches as, - Cor. v. 6, "for your consolation." in - ( 
Tim. ii. 10, he says that he endures all things for the 
3ake, not to redeem them from temporal punish- 
ment, but that, confirmed and animated by his example, 
they may obtain salvation by Christ. The remark 
made by Thomas! on this subject is a corred one. 
"The sufferings of the saints are profitable to the Church, 
not as a price of redemption, but as affording it example 
and exhortation not to depart from the truth." 

When Paul says,§ "• that he Jills up that which is be- i 
hind of the sufferings of Christ," he means not thesuffer- 
inga endured by Christ in his own person; but the , 
sufferings of Christ mystical, i. e., of his body, the 
Church; sufferings which are to be endured by every 

* Col. i. 24. t 1 r "r. i. 13. 

t 3 Quest. 48, Art. 3. § Col. i. 24 



ITS PERFECTION. 77 



Christian, after the manner of Christ, whose members 
they are. Paul, as well as all other saints, had to take 
up his cross and follow Christ, and endure that share 
of tribulation which God allotted him, while on the 
way to the kingdom of heaven. In filling up this 
measure of tribulation, the apostle bears his cross 
with alacrity. Christ is often thus, by a figure, put 
for his body, the Church: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest 
thou me ?"* The sufferings of the saints are often 
called the sufferings of Christ: "For as the sufferings 
of Christ abound in ws." f They are called so in rela- 
tion to their origin, because Christ, as supreme direct- 
or of the theatre of life, appoints them to us, and 
calls upon us to suffer them; J in relation to their ob- 
ject, for they are laid upon us on account of Christ 
and his Gospel; and also in relation to our union and 
communion with Christ, for we are one with him; so 
that blessings and sufferings are in some sense com- 
mon to US and Christ: "In all their afflictions he was 
afflicted.^ We are called to participate in his suffer- 
ings, that we may be conformed to him in his cross, 
before we are conformed to him in his glory. § 

It is one thing for a person to atone for his sins by 
a real satisfaction, another to break them olf by works 
of repentance and charity. It is in the latter sense 

* Acts ix. \, and 1 Cor. xii. 12. f 2 Cor. i. f>. 

% Acts ix. L6; 1 Pet. ii. 21; I'liil. i. 29. § Rom. viii. 18. 



TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



tliat Daniel* advise.»; Nebuchadnezzar to break off his 
sins. The Hebrew word pis, used by the prophet 
here, does not primarily Bignify to redeem, nor even to 
deliver; its primary sense is to tear away, or break 
off; and hence, as a collateral signification, to deliver. 
The prophet exhorts the king to repentance and a 
change of life, in order to make reparation to men, 
and not to God, for the injuries and oppressions 
which he had practised; and that thus, by breaking 
off his course oC Binning, he mighl be more prosper- 
ous, escape from the ruin which was hanging over 
him, and obtain a Longer continuance of peace in his 
empire. To the same purpose are all those places 
of* Scripture in which pardon of Bin is promised to 
repentance. The repentance is not a meritorious 
cause, hut a condition annexed, the medium through 
which pardon L8 obtained. 

Sufferings are of two kinds. In the one, they are 
exacted by a judge to make satisfaction to justice; in 
the other, they are inflicted for the correction of the 
offender. We admit that the latter species of offer- 
ing is often appointed to believers, not for vengeance, 
but for healing; not for destruction, but for correc- 
tion. God lays it upon them, qo! as a judge, but as a 
father; not out of hatred, but out of love. Cyprian 
says, "The Lord chastises the saints that he may advance 

* Dan. iv. 27. 



ITS PERFECTION. 79 



their holiness, and he advances their holiness that he may 
save them." To the same purpose Thomas speaks:* 
"Befo?-e pardon, the sufferings of the elect are punish- 
ments for sin; after -pardon, they are exercises." Au- 
gustin happily explains the difference between the 
punishments of the wicked and the chastisements of 
the saints: "All, both good and evil, suffer the same 
afflictions; nor by their afflictions can we distinguish, 
between the righteous and the wicked; for all things 
happen alike to all: there is one lot to the righteous 
and to the wicked. There is, however, a distinction 
between the persons who suffer. All who are sub- 
jected to the same pains are not alike vicious or vir- 
tuous. In the same fire gold shines and stubble 
smokes; by the same fan the chaff is blown away and 
the wheat purged. Dregs must not be confounded 
with oil, because both are pressed in the same press. 
The very same afflictions which prove, purify, and re- 
fine the righteous, are a curse and destruction to the 
wicked. Hence, under the pressure of the same ca- 
lamities, the wicked detest and blaspheme God, while 
the righteous pray to him and praise him. Thus the 
difference is not in the nature of the punishiJRits, but 
in the character of those who suffer them."t 

The chastisements which the saints experience 
sometimes, indeed, retain the name punishments, but 

* III. Q. 96. t De Civ. Dei., lib. i. cap. 8. 



80 TURRETTIX ON THE ATONEMENT. 

not in a strict sense. 1. Because punishments, in a 
strict sense, are inflicted by the Supreme Judge upon 
transgressors, on account of their violation of hie law. 
Hence, even after the state of a man is changed and lie 
becomes a saint, the pains and griefs which lie suffers 
are called by the same name, because, though not form- 
ally, they arematerially thesame. 2. Because there are 
many points of resemblance between them and punish- 
ments properly so called: like them, they are not joyous, 
but grievous to the flesh, which they are designed to 
subdue: they are dispensed to : by the will 

of a gracious < tod, with as much care and attention as 
he, in the character of an avenging judge, dispenses 
punishments: sin gii □ to both: both pro- 

duce in the mind the same apprehension thai God is 
an angry judge: and both serve as an example salu- 
tary to other offenders. But this grand difference 
still remain- — that, in the punishments of the wicked, 
is a judge, has in view satisfaction to his justice; 
while in the chastisements of his people, he, as a 
father, designs the correction and amendment of Ins 
disobedient children. 

The death of David's child, which affliction hap- 
pened to him after the pardon of his not a 
judicial punishment, but a fatherly chastisement; for 
his sin having been once pardoned, no punishment 

* 2 Sam. xii. 14. 



ITS PERFECTION. 81 



could remain to be borne. The reason which God 
assigns for thus afflicting the King of Israel gives no 
countenance to the idea that the affliction was judicial 
and expiatory. By his sin, he had given occasion to 
the enemy to blaspheme the name of God, and thus 
the discipline of the house of God had been most 
basely violated. This breach of discipline must be 
healed by a salutary example. Nor can we infer that 
it was judicial, from David's deprecating it. It is the 
part of human nature to endeavour to escape what- 
ever is painful, just as a sick man deprecates the caus- 
tic powders, the pain of the amputating knife, and the 
bitterness of medicine; though nothing can be further 
from the nature of punishment than these. 

Though death cannot be inflicted upon us to guard 
gainst future transgression, nor for our amend- 
ment, yet it by no means follows that it is designed as 
an atonement for sin. There are many other weighty 
reasons, rendering it necessary that all should die: 
such as, that the remains of sin may be destroyed; 
that we may pass from a natural and terrestrial state 
to one spiritual and heavenly; that piety may be ex- 
ercised; that, Christian virtues may be displayed in 
lOSt brilliant manner; and finally, that we 
may have a mosl powerful excitement to amend our 
life, ami prepare for entering upon a better inher- 
itance. 

The judgment, which, tin' Apostle Peter tells w+, 



82 TUBRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



must begin at the house of God * is not the legal 
judgment of avenging justice, which proceeds from 
God as a wrathful judge but a fatherly and evangeH- 
cal chastisement; not to punish and destroy, but to 
hold out a useful example, and to correct us, thai thus 
we may not be condemned with the world, as Paul 
Bays, il Cor. xi. 32.) The revenge mentioned 2 Cor. 
vii. 11, i- not properly a punishment inflicted by God 
in the character of judge; bul either an ecclesiasti- 
cal censure, such as excommunication, which is ad- 
judged by the Church for the removal of scandal; or 
it rather denotes tie- repentance and contrition in 
which a sinner is offended with himself, and, a- it 
were, takes vengeance on himself for his offences. 

Though those under the old Testament dispensa- 
tion, whose sin- were pardoned, had still to oiler sac- 
rifices for Bin, vet ;i wan-ant for attempting to make 
human atonements is not thence to he inferred. The 
sacrifices then offered were nut. properly Bpeaking, a 
satisfaction for sin: they were types of a future atone- 
ment to be made by Christ, through tin.' efficacy of 
which they procured pardon. 

When Solomon says,t that "by mercy and truth 
iniquity is purged" no countenance is given to the 
human satisfaction for which the Church of Rome 
contends. There are two opinions maintained re- 

* 1 Pet iv. 17. t Trov. xvi. 6. 



ITS PERFECTION. 83 

specting this passage. One is, that by "mercy and 
truth" are meant, the mercy and truth of God: then 
the wise man would directly allude to and assert the 
atonement of Christ. The other opinion is, that the 
mercy and truth of man are intended: then the doctrine 
which the text teaches would be, that mercy and 
truth are a condition always required when sin is 
pardoned, (but not the cause for which the sentence 
of pardon is pronounced:) because, against the un- 
merciful, judgment without mercy will be exercised; 
while on the other hand, " the merciful shall obtain 
mercy"'" 

The Hebrew word iso, which is here translated 
" purged," does not properly signify expiatory purg- 
ing, but either covering and remission only, which 
God bestows on the believing and merciful; or else 
the removal of the power of sin, in which sense it is 
used by the Prophet Isaiah. + Then the passage would 
intimate that the exercise of mercy and sincere piety 
removes the contrary vices. The following clause 
of the verse confirms this interpretation of the 
word: -'By the fear of the Lord men depart from 
evil." 

Though nothing defded can enter into the New 
Jerusalem, yel there is no need of any satisfaction in 
this life, besides that of Christ, nor of a purgatory 

* Matt. v. 6. t Isu. xxviii. 18. 



84 



TUBBETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 



in another, to purge away the pollutions of sin; for in 
the moment of death, when the soul is separated from 
the body, all the remains of sin are entirely removed 
by the Spirit of Christ. 



CHAPTER IV. 
Q>n tf)e illatter of tlje attornment. 

Statement of the Question. — Preliminary Remarks: — 1. Christ's 
atoning Sufferings extended through his whole Life. — 

2. Thet are to be distinguished as to Substance and Form. — 

3. His Obedience, has a twofold Efficact. — 4. The Law con- 
tains both Precepts and Sanctions. — 5. There is a threefold 
Subjection to the Law: Natural, Federal, and Penal. 

Arguments for the Orthodox View: — I. From Romans v. 9. — 
II. From Philip, ii. 8. — III. From Romans vm. 3, 4. — IV. From 
the Fact that Christ performed whatever was due on our 
Part.— V. From Rom. i. 17, in. 21, and v. 18.— VI. From the 
Indivisibility of his Righteousness. 

Objections answered: — That our Redemption is ascribed to 
Christ's Death;— That our Blessedness is attributed to 
Pardon;— That the Obedience of Christ's Death was suf- 
i k.'ient;— That Christ owed Obedience for Himself; — That 
ii He obeyed for us, we are no longer bound to obey; — That 
Christ's Death is a perfect Fulfilment of the Law.— Quota- 
tions from Calvin's Institutes;— From the Gallic Synods. 

Concerning the matter and parts of the satisfac- 
tion, various opinions have been embraced by divines. 
Some limit it to (he sufferings and punishments which 
In- endured for as. This opinion appears to have 
been first maintained by Cargius, a Lutheran minis- 



86 TUBBBTTEN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

ter, and after him by Piscator, a Reformed professor 
at Herbornc. Some of the divines who embrace it, 
confine that righteousness by which we are justified 
to the death which he suffered; while others of them 
comprehend in it, also, all the sufferings of his life. 
This they call his passive righteousness. The obe- 
dience which he yielded to the precepts of the Law, 
they term his active, righteousness, which they sup- 
pose to have been necessary in the person of the 
Mediator to the performance of his mediatorial func- 
tions. They maintain, however, thai ii forms no part 
of his atonement, or his merits, which are imputed 
to us. 

The common opinion in our churches is, that the 
atonement made by Christ, which is imputed to us for 
righteousness before God, is not confined to the Buf- 
ferings which he endured cither in his life or at his 
death. bu1 extends also to the obedience of his whole 
life; to all those just and holy actions by which he 
• perfectly obeyed the law in our stead, from these 
two parts, his sufferings and his obedience, they 
maintain that the full and perfect price of our re- 
demption proc 

In order to ascertain precisely the state of the 
question, we remark, that the subject of controversy 
is not, whether Christ perfectly fulfilled both the 
general law binding him to serve God, and the spe- 
cial law commanding him to submit to death. Nor, 



ITS MATTEE. 87 



whether the obedience of Christ's whole life was for 
the promotion of our interests, and necessary to pro- 
cure our salvation. Both are granted by our oppo- 
nents. They acknowledge that he fulfilled both laws, 
that the obedience of his life was necessary for him 
in the performance of his mediatorial duties, and in 
many respects profitable for us. We inquire whether 
this obedience forms a part <3f the satisfaction which 
he made to God for us; whether it was yielded in our 
stead. 

Again, the inquiry is not, whether the mere suffer- 
ings belong to the satisfaction. For those, whose 
opinion we controvert, acknowledge that no suffering 
can be of an atoning nature, unless it be of an active 
character, voluntarily endured. They also admit that, 
in order to its being acceptable to God, it must include 
an active obedience or voluntary oblation, which 
unites the highest love with the most perfect right- 
eousness and holiness. They even say that the observ- 
ance of the whole law was condensed into one action, 
that I»!' Christ's death. 

Cut the inquiry is, whether the obedience which 
Chrisl through his life yielded to the law, is to be 

joined to the Obedience which he yielded in his death 

and Bufferings, in order to constitute our justifying 
righteousness before God. We must distinguish be- 
tween what Christ did directly and immediately to 
make an atonement, and what only pertained as pre- 



88 TUERETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

vious condition? to his making it. In this last we place 
the personal holiness of Christ. Hence the question 
is reduced to this point: is the atonement which Christ 
made for us restricted to his death alone, oral least 
to all those Bufferings which were either antecedent 
to his death or accompanied it ? Or does it compre- 
hend all which Chrisl did and suffered for us, from the 
beginning to the end of hi- life? The former is the 
opinion of Cargius, Piscator, and their followers; the 
latter is our opinion and that of our churches gener- 
ally. In order to set forth more clearly the doc- 
trine for which we contend, we make the following 
remark.-: 

1. The atoning sufferings of Christ extend to all 
those which were inflicted upon him, not only in the gar' 
den of Gethsemane. but also during his whole life. Wo 
cannot approve of the hypothesis, which restricts the 
expiatory Bufferings of our Redeemer to the pains he 
Buffered during the three hours in which the sun was 
darkened, and he hung on the cross before hi- death ; 
while it excludes all the other sufferings of his life, as, 
at most, necessary only to vindicate the truth of < rod, 
and to accomplish the typical representations of Christ 
under the law. We admit, indeed, that the greatest 
aironies of Christ were those to which he was exposed 
during those hours of darkness. But it is abundantly 
evident that all his other sufferings were expii 
(1.) Because the Scripture nowhere restricts his expia- 



ITS MATTER. 89 



tion to the three hours in which the sun was darken- 
ed, but refers it to his sufferings in general, without 
any limitation.* They even extend it to his whole 
humiliation.! (2.) Because the agonies which he en- 
dured in the garden, and which are expressed by the 
words grief, sorrow, agony, heaviness, amazement, and 
being exceeding sorrowful even unto death, on account of 
the tremendous weight of divine wrath and maledic- 
tion, were the chief sufferings which Christ had to 
endure in his soul for us. (3.) The contrary opinion 
wrests from many pious Christians one great means of 
consolation. In the sufferings of Christ's whole life, 
as expiatory, they find rest to their souls. This idle 
imagination of Cargius and Piscator would snatch 
from Christians all this solace, and deprive them of 
innumerable evidences of the divine love. 

The objection which is brought against this reason- 
ing from Zech. iii. 0: " I will remove the iniquity of 
that land in one day," is of no avail. That from these 
words of the Apostle, " We are sanctified through the of- 
fering of the body of Jesus once for all,"% is equally unsub- 
Btantial. The inference to be drawn from these texts 
LB ii'it that the sufferings of Christ, antecedent to those 
on the cross, are not expiatory; but only that the atone- 
menl was consummated on the cross. In consequence 

* Is& liii. 4, 5. 1 Pet. IL 21, and iii. 18. Matt. xvi. 21. He)), v. 7, 
and x. 8, 9. t PML ii. 6, 7. % Bfeb. x. 10. 



90 TURBETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

of this consummation all the sins of all the elect were, 
in one day, blotted out. The reason why the Apostle, 
by a figure common in all languages, refers the expia- 
tion of our sins to the one offering of Christ, is. that 
his sufferings on the cross were the lasl and most |»ier- 
cing, without which all his antecedent sufferings would 
have been insufficient ; as the payment of the lasl Bir- 
thing completes the liquidation of thedebi and cancels 
the bond. Because he was inaugurated into his medi- 
atorial office, in the thirtieth year of his age, we may 
not thence infer, that previously to that time, he was 
neither a priest nor a victim : for by the same mode 
of reasoning, it would follow, that before thirty years 
of age he was not a Mediator. That Christ was in 
favour with God. that he was his well-beloved Son, 
nay, thai he was sometimes in his life glorified, does 
not prove that he did not then bear the divine wrath. 
These two are not at all incompatible with each other. 
Christ, viewed in himself, never ceased to be most 
clearly beloved of his Father, not even in hi- excrucia- 
ting tortures on the accursed tree, though, as our 
surety, he bore the load of the divine wrath, and was 
made a curse for us. Itwas not necessary that the pun- 
ishment which Christ underwent should be so intense, 
that it could admit of no intervals of alleviation by 
which he might l>e animated to encounter gloriously 
the dreadful contlict set before him. 

2. In the actions and suffering's of Christ, two things I 



ITS MATTER. 91 



are to be considered: their substance and their form. They 
are considered in relation to their substance, when we 
examine their nature and intensity. They are con- 
sidered formally, when they are examined as constitu- 
ting a righteousness to be sustained before the tribu- 
nal of God. In the former light the actions and suf- 
ferings are many and various. In the latter they are 
to be considered under one form only, that of a whole, 
composed of all his actions and passions — a one and 
perfect righteousness. Wherefore one action or pas- 
sion alone cannot be said to effect a full atonement, 
because it is necessary that a perfect obedience should 
be connected with it. Hence, although various de- 
grees and acts may be remarked in the obedience of 
Christ, which commenced at his birth, was continued 
through his life, and completed at his death, yet it is 
unique, as to the completion of the work of salvation 
and the righteousness which it accomplishes. 

3. There is in the obedience of Christ a twofold 
efficacy. The one is expiatory, that by which we arc 
freed from those punishments to which we were liable 
«mi account of sin. The other is a meritorious efficacy, 
by which, through the remission of our sins, a title to 
eternal life mid salvation 1ms been acquired for us. 
For :i-- -in has brought upon us two evils — the loss of 
life, and exposure in death ; so redemption must pro- 
cure two lienefits — liberation from death, and a title 
to life: or, deliverance from hell and an introduction 



92 



TURKETTIX ON THE ATOXEMEXT. 



into heaven. There arc various passages of Scripture 
which clearly express these two benefits. " To make 
reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in an everlasting 
righteousness."* " Christ hath redeemed us from, the 
law, being made a curse for us — that the blessing of Abra- 
ham might come on the Gentiles.''']' " God sent forth his 
Son — to redeem them thai were tender the law, that we 
might receive the adoption of sons. "% "'We were recon- 
ciled to God by the death of his Son; much more being 
reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."§ " That they 
may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among 
them which are sanctified. "|| 

These two blessings, indeed, which flow from the 
obedience of Christ, are indissolubly connected in the 
covenant of grace, so that no one who obtains the 
pardon of sin can fail of acquiringa right to life. Yet 
they must be distinguished, and not confounded as if 
they were one and the same thing. It is one thing to 
free from death, another to introduce into life; one 
thing to deliver from hell, another to conduct into 
heaven; one thing to free from punishment, another 
to bestow rewards. Though it is true that no one is 
freed from death, who is not also made a partaker of 
life, yet it does not follow that a deliverance from the 
death which we deserve is not to be distinguished 



Dan. ix. 24. 
Rora. v. 10. 



f Gal. iii. 13, 14. 
II Acts xxvi. 18. 



% Ibid. iv. 4. 



ITS MATTER. 93 



from the acquisition of glory. There are many grades 
of life as well as of holiness. The possession of life 
does, indeed, follow liberation from death, but it is 
not necessary that this life should be a happy and glo- 
rious one ; as liberty follows deliverance from prison, 
but it may be liberty without a throne and a diadem. 
Joseph might have been freed from prison and not set 
over the land of Egypt. Between death and life 
simply there is no medium, but between eternal death, 
and a life happy and glorious, there is a medium — the 
life of bondage in which man is now placed. The 
present life, in which man is bound to the performance 
of duty, is a state of pilgrimage, not of heavenly 
rest. 

While we believe it necessary to make distinctions 
such as these, we think it improper to inquire curi- 
ously, as some do, by what particular acts Christ made 
atonement, and by what he merited life for us. Those 
who make these too nice distinctions, attribute the 
atonement to his sufferings ; and the acquisition of 
a right to life, to his active obedience to the law. 
These distinctions receive no countenance from Scrip- 
ture, which nowhere distinguishes the obedience of 
Christ into parte, but, on the contrary, represents it 
as a thing unique, by which he hath done in our place 
everything which the law requires of us. As Christ, 
by the obedience of his life, has rendered to the law 

th:il which it required of us, and to which we were 
4* 



94 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

otherwise personally bound ; so by this obedience he 
lias satisfied the law, as to those demands which it 
makes upon us : aud hence his active obedience par- 
takes of the nature of satisfaction. Again, as his pas- 
sive obedience proceeded from unspeakable love to us, 
and as love is the fulfilling of the law, wecannol deny 
but it was meritorious, and of the nature of a price of 
redemption, by which a right to life has been acquired 
for us. Therefore, we should avoid those curious dis- 
tinctions, and consider liberation from death and our 
righl to life as flowing from all the mediatorial duties, 
which Christ performed during his humiliation, and 
which, considered as a whole, are called the obedience 
of Christ. Sin could not be expiated before the law 
was fulfilled, nor could a right to life be acquired, 
before the charges preferred against us on account of 
sin were blotted out. Chrisl merited by making 
atonement, and by meriting he made atonement. 

Herein lay the utmosl meril that he performed a 
mosl arduous work, impossible to all other beings and 
by no means obligatory upon himself, by his perfect 
obedience. This obedience was at once a great proof 
of love to us, an act of submission to the Father and 
a conformity to the special law of his own vocation. 
Yet it would have been of no avail to us, had it not 
been sealed and consummated by his death. The 
atonement is not to be ascribed merely to the external 
shedding of his blood, but also, and principally, to an 



ITS MATTER. 95 



internal act — his spontaneous and unchangeable will 
to suffer even to the death of the cross for us. By this 
voluntary offering of himself, we are said to be sanc- 
tified.* It is to be ascribed to the payment not of the 
last farthing, but of the whole of the price of redemp- 
tion, which is Christ, delivering up and subjecting 
himself for us. 

The objection which Socinus offers against this is of 
no force. He says, that " atonement and merit are in- 
compatible with each other, for satisfaction or atone- 
ment is the payment of a just debt, whereas merit is 
effected by giving something not due on the score of 
justice." This is accurate when applied to a satisfac- 
tion or payment made by a debtor in his own person, 
but not when applied to a vicarious satisfaction, in 
which a surety, while making satisfaction, may have 
merit with both the debtor and the creditor : with the 
debtor, by paying, when under no obligation to do so, 
a debl for him, and thus graciously freeing him from 
all obligation to the creditor: with the creditor also, 
especially if a covenant lias been made, in which it is 
Stipulated thai upoi] making a specified payment, it 
shall be admitted not only as a satisfaction for sin, 
lmt as procuring a title to blessings not otherwise due. 
This is the case here, as appears from Isa. liii. 10; 
Heb. i.\. \'>] Col. i. 19, '20, ami similar passages. 

•Heb. x. 14. 



96 TUREETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

4. There are two things contained in the law. 
These are precepts, which prescribe duties; and sanc- 
tions, which ordain rewards to those who keep the 
law, and punishments to its transgressors. Man, who 
is under the obligation of the law, may be at the same 
time bound both to obedience and punishment. This, 
however, cannot lake place in a state of primitive rec- 
titude, but in a state of sin. For sinful man sustains 
a twofold relation to God — one the relation of a crea- 
ture, the other that of a sinful and condemned creature. 
In the former lie always owes obedience to God, and 
can never be freed from this obligation so long as he 
continues a creature, no matter how situated. In the 
latter he is obnoxious to punishment. Yet we cannot 
infer from this doctrine that man pays his debt twice 
to God. A penal debt is very different from a debt 
of obedience A penal debt arises from past trans- 
ions : a debt of obedience, from the indispensa- 
ble obligation of the creature to obey the Creator, 
which is coextensive with the whole term of its exist- 
ence, and neither is nor can be relaxed, even while 
the creature is suffering the punishment of its trans- 
gressions. 

5. There is a threefold subjection to the law — a 
natural, a federal, and a penal subjection. The natural 
subjection arises from the law as a rule of holiness, 
and respects the creature as a creature. It is eternal 
and indispensable, because, in every situation, the crea- 



ITS MATTER. 97 



ture is bound to be subject to God and to obey him. 
The federal subjection arises from the law as prescrib- 
ing a condition, upon the fulfilment of which a reward 
is to be attained; respects the creature as placed in a 
covenant state; and prescribes the performance of duty 
under the promise of rewards and punishments. The 
penal subjection respects the creature as placed in a 
state of sin and condemnation, and binds him to suffer 
the punishment which the law denounces. The first 
is absolute and immutable ; for as long as there is a 
creature and a Creator, the creature must be subject 
to the Creator. God can no more dispense with his 
claim of subjection upon the creature than he can deny 
himself. The second is economical and changeable, 
because, as it respects man not in a natural, but in a 
constituted state, it continues in force as long as man 
continues in that state, and no longer. So soon as he 
has finished his probation, and, by fulfilling the con- 
dition, lias obtained the reward, he is freed from his 
Bubjection. The third is necessary and inevitable, 
whenever the creature falls into sin, which is always 
followed by punishment. The first is founded in a 
righl essentia] to Cod; in his natural; underived, and 
necessary authority over the creature, and in the 
natural dependence of tin; creature upon him. The 
Becond is founded in the sovereign pleasure of God, 
whereby he has been pleased to enter into ;i covenant 
with his creature, and promise life under this or that 



98 



TUREETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 



condition. The third is founded in the judicial au- 
thority and vindicatory justice of God, by which he 
avenges the transgressions of his creature. " Venge- 
ance is mine, and I will repay." All creatures, an- 
gels and men, arc under the natural subjection to the 
law. Adam, in a state of innocence, was under the 
federal subjection. Devils and reprobate men are 
under the penal subjection. 

In this third respect, it is easy to conceive how 
Christ was subjected to the law — "Made under the 
law" as the apostle expresses it: and whether he was 
subjected to the law for himself or for us. As a man, 
there is no doubt but he was subject to the law for himself 
as a rule of holiness* by a common and natural subjec- 
tion, under which angels and glorified saints arc in 
heaven, who are bound to love and serve God. But 
it does not follow from this thai he was Bubject to the 



* Witsius, the « legant author of the " Economy of the Covenants. - ' 
as well as Turrettin and President Edwards, takes this view of the 
obligations of Christ as a creature. But, as Turrettin Pays the hu- 
man nature of Christ is only an adjunct of his divine person, he couM 
owe no obedience for himself. It is a person only, who is the subject 
of the mural law, and the person of Christ is the second person of the 
Trinity, who is Lord of the law. His humility is everywhere in 
Scripture represented as voluntary. Had he been subject to the law 
for himself, he could not have performed an obedience for other». 
Those great divines rather express themselves loosely than errone- 
ously; not foreseeing the bad use which men of subtle and unsound 
mind would make of their inaccurate phrases. 



ITS MATTER. 99 



law as to that which imposed the indispensable condi- 
tions of happiness. Nor that he was federally subject 
to it, so as to need to earn eternal life by obedience, 
for such life was his already by virtue of the hypo- 
statical union. Much less was he bound by a penal 
subjection, for he was most holy and absolutely free 
from all sin. So that when he undertook the twofold 
office of fulfilling the precepts of the law, and suffer- 
ing its sanction, all this was to be done in conse- 
quence of a voluntary arrangement, by which he, as 
Mediator, engaged to perform them for us. It result- 
ed from his covenant with his Father, to do and suffer 
as our surety all those things which the law claimed 
of us, and which were necessary to our redemption. 

These remarks being premised in order to an accu- 
rate understanding of the subject, we now proceed to 
offer proofs in support of our opinion. It is con- 
firmed from many passages of Scripture. 

I. The first we adduce is Rom. v. 19: "For as by 
thi' disobedience of one many were made sinners; so by 
the obedience of (inc. arc many made righteous. 11 Here 
the atonemenl ie referred to hie obedience, not to that 
of his death, but also that of his life. 1. Because the 
apostle treats of his whole obedience, withoul any 
limitation; hence this obedience musl be perfect, and 
continued from the beginning of his life to the end. 



100 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



An incomplete obedience will not suit the language 
here used by the Spirit. 2. He treats concerning an 
obedience, which imports universal conformity to the 
law, not only with respect to the penal sanction, but 
also, and indeed chiefly, with respect to observing its 
precepts. 3. He treats of what is called, v. 17, the 
•• gift of righteousness," which cannot be applied to the 
sufferings of Christ. 4. lie speaks of an obedience 
which is opposed to, the disobedience of Adam; and 
as the disobedience of Adam was a violation of the 
whole law. so the obedience of Christ mast be a ful- 
filment of the whole law. 5. Of an obedience which 
was due from us, both as to precept and penalty. It 
will be of no avail to object, "that the obedience is 
nothing else than the one righteousness mentioned 
verse 18, and which is said to be to justification of life, 
and that the condemnation of sin under which we 
have fallen arose from one sinful act of Adam." The 
righteousness Bpoken of here does not intend one act 
of righteousness; it denotes a righteousness effected 
by a complete and perfect obedience. Nor, though 
the offence came upon all from one sin, can the right- 
eousness be derived to all from one act: because the 
least failure in performing the demands of the law is 
sin; whereas righteousness requires the fulfilment of 
the whole law. 

II. The obedience of Christ is said to have been 



ITS MATTER. 101 



even to death* in which, not only its intensity as to 
degree is expressed, an intensity the greatest whicji 
can be rendered by any one; but also its extension and 
duration, from the begiuning of his life to its end. 
This appears from his obedience being referred to the 
whole of his humiliation, which appeared not in his 
death only, but in his whole life. In other portions 
of Scripture, the obedience of Christ is described by 
the writing of the law in his heart* t and his active 
observance of it.J Again, it is spoken of as a race 
which Christ had to run,§ and as a work which he 
had to perform. || These were not to be consummated 
by one act, but to be a constant tenor of obedience 
through his whole life. 

III. It behoved Christ to be made in the likeness of 
sinful flesh, that lie might supply what the law could 
not do, in that it was weak, and fulfil the claims of the 
law in us.1T This weakness of the law is not to be un- 
derstood subjectively, as if it were in the law, but 
objectively, in the sinner in relation to the law; on 
account of his inability to perforin any one of the duties 
which it commands. This law is said to be weak, not 
in relation to the infliction of punishment, but as to 
tin' observation of its precepts. Christ, therefore, by 



* ri.il. ii. 8. t PaaL xl. \ Ileb. x. 5. 

§ Beb. .\ii. 1, 2. || John xvii. 4. " Rom. viii. 3, 4. 



102 TUBRETTTN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

supplying what the law could not do in us, must fulfil 
all the law demanded of us, and work out what the 
apostle calls " righteousness," or the rights of the law, 
without doubt a right to life, obtained by doing what 
the law commands. This required not only a pas 
but also an active ohedience. For seeing the law and 
commands of God arc the same, punishments cannot 
be said to fulfil the law. or its commands. They 
satisfy its denunciations only. Who would say that 
a malefactor, wh<> had been capitally punished lor his 
crimes, had obeyed the king or the law? To act 
agreeably to law is a good and praiseworthy thing. 
which cannot he asserted respecting the suffering of 
punishment, per se, unless it will he asserted, that he 
ie to be applauded who suffers the punishmenta of 
hell. 

IV. We argue, in favour of extending the atone- 
ment to the active obedience of Christ, from his being 
hound to all that the law required of us, in order to 
acquire a title to life. To this, obedienceof life was mo 
less requisite than the suffering of death; because the 
sinful creature is bound to both these, and both were 
necessary to the obtaining of pardon and a right to 
life. In the law, life is not promised to him who 
suffers its penalties, hut to him who performs its 
duties. '• Do this and thou shalt live." Hence, to un- 
dergo the penalty by dying, was not sufficient, without 



ITS MATTER. 103 



the obeying of the precepts. Let it not here be object- 
ed, " that there is a difference between evangelical and 
legal justification; that in the latter a perfect obedi- 
ence to the law is requisite, but not in the former." 
The difference of our justification now under the Gos- 
pel, from that under the covenant of works, is not 
placed in the thing itself, but in the manner in which 
we obtain it. Justification, whether legal or evangel- 
ical, must be founded on a righteousness, perfect, abso- 
lutely perfect, in all its parts; a righteousness which 
shall comply with all the conditions that the law im- 
poses for the purpose of obtaining eternal life; a 
righteousness which shall answer to the eternal and 
immutable claims of God upon the creature. These 
were qualities in that righteousness by which we were 
to be justified, that could not be dispensed with even 
in Christ; " for he came not to destroy the law, but to 
fulfil it."* The only difference of our justification lies 
in the manner in which it comes to us. What the law 
demanded of us as a perfect righteousness to be 
wrought out in our own persons, has been wrought by 
another, even by Christ, in our stead. 

V. We infer that the active obedience of Christ is 
comprehended in that atonement which he made for 
Bin, from the atonement's being founded in his right- 

* Matt. v. 17, and Rom. iii. 31. 



104 TURRETHN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

eousness. as appears from various passages of Scripture* 
Whence justification is saidf to be effected by the im- 
putation of righteousness. But the righteousness of 
Christ does not consist in his suffering, but in his 
doing. The righteousness of the law is not obtained 
by suffering, but by doing, even as the sentence of con- 
demnation is pronounced for sinning. Christ testifies, 
that it '■ became him to fulfil all righteousness":;: by do- 
ing in everything the will of his Father; and Paul says, 
" that Christ was made sin for us, that wo might be made 
the righteousness of God in him."§ By which it is to 
be understood, thai, as those sins which violated the 
law were imputed to Christ, so his righteous actions, 
by which he fulfilled the law, are imputed to us for a 
justifying righteousness. 

A* I. The samedoctriue is established from 1 Cor.i. 
13, where it is said, that Christ is not divided. Hence, 
we infer that his righteousness is not to be divided, 
but, as a whole and unique inheritance, is to be be- 
stowed on us. The paschal lamb was to be eaten 
whole: and. in like manner. Christ, who was typically 
represented by that lamb, is to be received by us in 
all his mediatorial fulness, both as to what he did and 
what he suffered. This view of the subject attributes 

* Rom. i. 17, and iii. 21. and v. 18. Phil. iii. 2. Dan. ii. 21. 
\ Rom. to. t Matt. xiii. 15. § 2 Cor. v. 21. 



ITS MATTER. 105 



greater glory to Christ and presents richer fountains 
of consolation. This consolation is greatly diminish- 
ed by those who take away from the price of our 
redemption a part of his perfect righteousness and 
most holy obedience, and thus rend his seamless coat. 

We shall now proceed to the removal of objections. 
If our redemption and salvation are attributed to the 
death and blood of Christ, this is not done to the ex- 
clusion of the obedience of his life; for such a restric- 
tion is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. On the con- 
trary, the work of man's salvation is, in many places, 
as shown above, attributed to the obedience and 
righteousness of Christ. When the death or blood of 
Christ is mentioned alone, and our redemption ascribed 
to it, this is done by a synechdoche, a figure which 
puts a part for the whole. The reason is, that his 
death was the lowest degree of his humiliation and the 
completion of his obedience, that which supposes all 
the other parts, and without which they would have 
been of no avail. No righteousness merits anything 
unless it is persevered in to the last breath; a payment 
is never perfectly made, until the last farthing is paid 
and the bond cancelled. 

Though the Apostle Paul attributes* the blessedness 
of the saints to the remission of sin which flows from 

* Rum. iv. 7. 



106 TURRETTIX ON THE ATONEMENT. 

the Mood of Christ, yet it does not follow from this, 
that all our righteousness and the whole of the satis- 
faction made by Christ, are founded in his passion. 
For the apostle docs not argue from the pardon of 
sin's being precisely equivalent to the imputation of 
righteousness and its proceeding precisely from the 
same thing in the atonement; but from the indissoluble 
connection among the blessings of the new covenant, 
a connection bo intimate, that every one who obtains 
pardon of sin. necessarily and immediately obtains a 
right to life and becomes an heir of the kingdom of 
heaven. In the same way Paul treats of love to oof 
neighbour, and the fulfilling of the whole law. as the 
same thing;* because, when love to our neighbour 
exists, all the other duties of the law will necessarily 
be performed. 

Though each obedience of Christ, as well that of his 
life as of his death, was perfect in its kind, yet nei- 
ther of them alone was a sufficient satisfaction, which 
required the observance of precepts as well as the 
suffering of punishments, that liberation from death 
and a right to life might be procured. One does not 
exclude the other; nay, they mutually include each 
other. 

What one person owes for himself, he cannot pay 
for another, if he be a private person. But nothing 
prevents such a payment, when the person is a public 

* Gal. v. 14 



ITS MATTER. 107 



character, who may act both in his own name and in 
the name of those whom he represents. He who pays 
what he owes for himself, cannot by the same thing- 
make a payment for others, unless he has voluntarily 
made himself a debtor for them, in which case he can. 
For, although he may be a debtor, yet this character 
arises from his own voluntary act — the debt which he 
has to pay for himself is a debt which, were it not 
for his own voluntary deed, he is not bound to pay, 
and hence, while he is paying for himself, he may, by 
the same act, pay for another. So Christ, who be- 
came man, not for his own sake, but for our sakes, 
was under obligation to fulfil the law in order to 
merit life, not for himself, but for us. Though Christ, 
as a creature, was naturally subject to the law, yet he 
was not under it by a covenant and economical subjec- 
tion, binding him to obtain life for himself, and stand 
as a surety in the room of sinners ; for this arose 
from a voluntary agreement entered into between him 
and his Father. In an economical sense, he owed 
nothing for himself, because he is the Son of God, and 
Lord of the law. As to his human nature, he was 
not thus bound cither absolutely or partially. Not 
absolutely, for his human nature was an adjunct of 
his divine person; and as this was not subject to the 
law. neither could the nature be which was assumed 
by it. Moreover, since the assumption of human na- 
ture w;is a part of his humiliation, the sume must he 



108 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

true of all that results from that assumption. One 
of these results is the subjection to the law. Not 
relatively, because, as man, he was not bound by the 
old legal covenant, which belonged only to those 
whom Adam represented, and who were naturally de- 
scended from him. From all which I infer, that he 
had no need to perform the duties of the law to ac- 
quire for himself a right to life; which right, of neces- 
sity, results from the connection of his human nature 
with the Logos, the second person of the Trinity. 
Ib'iiec also I infer, that Christ owed all his covenant 
obedience for us, and this in the character of a surety 
who represented us. 

Though Christ obeyed God in our room, we cannot 
thence infer that we arc no longer bound to obedience 
in our own persons. It is indeed fairly to be inferred, 
that we are not bound to obey for the same end and 
from the same cause — to obtain life by the perform- 
ance of duties, to which we are bound by covenant 
obligation. Yet we may be, and are, in perfect con- 
sistency with the obedience of Christ for us, bound 
by a natural obligation to yield the same obedience to 
God, not that we may obtain life, but because we 
have obtained it; not that we may acquire a right to 
heaven, but that, having through Christ obtained a 
title, we may be prepared for entering upon its enjoy- 
ment. Hence, though Christ has died for us, we are 
still obnoxious to natural death; not, however, for a 



ITS MATTER. 109 



punishment, but for a deliverance from the evils of 
this life and an introduction into heaven. 

We must distinguish between a righteousness of in- 
nocence, which takes place when one is accused of no 
fault, and a righteousness of perseverance, to which a 
reward is due for duties done. The pardon of sin 
produces the former kind of righteousness, by taking 
away every accusation on account of sins committed; 
but it does not of necessity so produce the latter, 
that he who obtains it must be forthwith adjudged to 
have performed all duties. It is one thing to free a 
person from the punishment which is due to the omission 
of duty; another to account him really righteous with 
the righteousness of perseverance to which life is 
promised, just as if he had omitted no duty and 
done no evil. The former of these is obtained in 
the day of pardon, but not the latter; which would be 
contrary to truth and the just judgment of God. 
Pardon does not remove sin, but prevents its imputa- 
tion. He who is pardoned may and does commit 
sin; but in consequence of the pardon which he has 
obtained, it shall not be imputed to him for condem- 
nation. Pardon takes away only the guilt of sin, 
and consequently its punishment, but not its pol- 
lution. Thus, to be viewed as having done no sin 
and as having omitted no duly, can lie understood in 
a twofold sense: 1. In relation to punishment — that 

we can no more be punished than if we had in reality 
5 



110 TUBBETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

committed no sin and omitted no duty; because we 
arc freed from all that punishment which is due to sin. 
2. In relation to the obtaining of reward — that he 
who is esteemed to have performed all duty and 
avoided all sin, shall be judged by God to have done 
all things which are necessary to life. In this latter 
Bense, it is not true that he whose sins are remitted is 
to be esteemed free from all sin; for, as was remarked 
above, pardon takes away punishment; but God is 
not, by the sentence of pardon which he pronounces, 
bound to hold the sinner as free from all delinquency, 
as having fulfilled all his duty, and as a perfectly just 
person. This is not true in fact. The guilty is not 
to be esteemed righteous, because, through su] (plica- 
tion and confession, he has obtained pardon from the 
Judge. 

It cannot be said that God demands a double pay- 
ment of the same debt. For the law binds the sinner 
both to obedience and punishment, as is said above; 
and the actions and sufferings of Christ do not con- 
stitute a double payment, but both together consti- 
tute one payment; one unique righteousness, by which 
deliverance from death and a right to life have been 
acquired for us. 

A perfect fulfilment of the law cannot be said to 
have been condensed into the voluntary death of 
Christ. For the law demands perfect obedience to 
all its several precepts, and this not in degree only, 



ITS MATTER. Ill 



but in duration, from the beginning to the end of life; 
all whieh cannot be accomplished in one action. 

So fai^is the whole of Christ's righteousness, which 
is imputed to us, from being placed in his sufferings, 
that, strictly speaking, no righteousness is placed in 
Buffering, but in doing only. No one can be called 
righteous merely because he suffers, for misery is not 
virtue. Besides, sufferings yield no obedience to 
those commands of the law to which life is promised; 
they only satisfy its sanctions, and cannot be called, 
per se, righteousness. If there is any righteousness in 
punishment, it belongs to the person who inflicts the 
punishment, and not to him who is punished. 

Calvin, in many parts of his works, teaches the 
doctrine for which we contend. Take the following 
passages.* "When it is asked how. by the removal 
o!' sin, Christ hath taken away the enmity between 
God and us; and brought in a righteousness which 
hath made God our friend? It may be answered in 
general, that he lias done this by the whole course of 
his obedience. This is proved by the testimony of 
Paul, as by fhc transgression of one, many were made 
Burners, so by the obedience of. one, many were made right' 
i bus. Elsewhere, the ground of pardon, that whieh de- 
liver- a- from the curse of the law, the same apostle 
extends to the whole of Christ's life. 'Whentheful- 



1 S, Bl C. •"'. 



112 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



ness of time was come, Gqfl sent forth his Son, made under 
the law, to redeem them that were under the law: Even 
in his baptism, God declares, Christ fulfilled a part of 
this righteousness, because he obeyed his Father's will. 
Finally, from the time that ' he took upon himself the 
form of a servant,' he began to pay the price of our 
redemption. Nevertheless, thai the Scripture may 
define more precisely the manner in which salvation 
is procured, it. ascribes peculiarly the price of redemp- 
tion to the death of Christ." He afterwards adds, 
"Yet the remaining part of his obedience which he per- 
formed during his life is not excluded; for the apostle 
comprehends the wh.de of his obedience from the be- 
ginning of his life to the cud. when he says, that ' he 
humbled himself and tr.uk upon him thejorm of a ser- 
vant, and was obedient to his Fat/u r on!» death, even the 
death of the cross.' Indeed, his death occupies the first 
grade in his voluntary subjection; because a sacrifice 
availed nothing, unless it was offered freely.'' Else- 
where, he remarks* that " acceptiug grace, is nothing 
else but his unmerited goodness, by which the Father 
embraces us in Christ, clothes us with his innocence, 
causing us to accept it. that on account of it. Ik 1 may 
esteem us holy, pure and innocent. It behooves the 
righteousness of Christ, which alone is perfect and 
will stand in the sight of God, to be presented for us, 

* Inst., book iii. cap. 14, 



ITS MATTER. 113 



and as a righteousness offered by our surety, to Le set 
to our account in the judgment. Furnished with this, 
we, through faith, obtain perpetual remission of sin. 
By its immaculate purity, all our defilements are 
washed away: they are not laid to our account, but 
before the splendour of Immanuel's righteousness, 
are banished and flee away, never more to rise 
against us in judgment." 

The Gallic Synods, by repeated acts, have given 
their most explicit testimony in favour of the same 
truth.* '" Since man can find in himself, either before 
or after effectual calling, no righteousness by which 
he can stand before the tribunal of God, he cannot be 
justified unless in our Lord Jesus Christ, who was 
obedient to God the Father, even from his entrance 
into the world until his ignominious death on the 
cross. Jn his life and at his death, he fulfilled the 
whole law given to man and the command to suffer and 
lay down his life, a price of redemption for many. By 
this perfect obedience wo are rendered righteous; 
for through the goodness of God it is imputed to 
us and received by faith, which is the gift of God. 
We, by the meril of the whole of this obedience, obtain 
lor of our sins and are rendered worthy of eter- 
nal lil 

* Privatensif Svnodus, anno L612, and Tonninensis, anno lull. 



CHAPTER V. 
©n tljc (Jrjrtcnt of tlje Atonement. 

Opinion of the Pelagians; of the Jesuits; of the Lithei: a\s; 
of Armtnianb; of Cameri a, Testardus and Amyraut.— Doctrine 
of the Reformed.— Statement of the Question.— Arguments;— 
I. Scripture restricts Christ's Death to certain Class 
General Objections to the Passages quoted.— Objections in 
Detail: to Matt. i. 21: to John x. 15; to Ephes. v. 25 and Tit. 
ii. 14; to Matt. xx. 2S and Dei?, ix. 28.— II. Christ was arm» 

TO DIE ONLY FOR THOSE WHO WERE GIVEN TO HIM BTTHE FATHER. 

TTT. Christ atoned only for those for whom he intercedes.— 
IV. The Connection between the Gift of Christ and that of 
the Holt Spirit.— V. Christ's wonderful Love to his People. 
—VI. The Nature of his Suretyship.— VII. The limited Ap- 

- plication of his Salvation.— VIII. He did not PORCH \src Faith 
and Repentance for All.— IX. The Completeness of his 
Expiation.— X. The Absurdities which flow from the con- 
trary Doctrine. 

Objections answered:— That Christ is said to have died for all 
Men: 2 Cor. V. 15, 19; Rom. v. is. I!); 1 Tim. ii. 6:— For the 
World: John hi. 16:— For those who perish: 1 Cor. viii. 11: — 
For those who deny Him: 2 Pet. ii. 1 :— For those who pro- 
fane the Blood of the Covenant: Deb. x. 29:— That all Men- 
are BOUND TO BELIEVE THAT He DIED FOR THEM: — THAT UNLESS 

He did die for All. the Gospel Offer cannot be Sincere. 



The controversy concerning 1 the extent or univer- 
sality of the atonement lias been, and still is, greatly 



ITS EXTENT. 115 



agitated, which imposes upon us a necessity of hand- 
ling it, that nothing may be wanting to a clear eluci- 
dation of this all-important article of the Christian 
system. 

Among the ancients, the Pelagians and Semi-Pela- 
gians contended that Christ died for all men; hence 
Prosper, in his letter to Augustine, concerning the 
remains of the Pelagian heresy, says, " Those who 
embrace the Pelagian heresy profess to believe that 
Christ died for all men universally, and that none are 
excluded from the atonement and redemption which 
the blood of Christ has effected." And among those 
errors which they attribute to Augustine, they find 
this: " The Saviour was not crucified for the redemp- 
tion of the whole world." Faustus* says, " They 
wander far from the path of piety, who assert that 
Christ did not die for all." Hincmar, in his letter to 
Pope Nicholas,! recounts it as one of the errors of 
Gotteschalcus, that lie preached that Christ did not 
shed his blood, precious to God the Father, for the 
redemption and salvation of all men, but for those 
only who will be saved, or for the elect. To the 
Bame purpose are the anathemas of the pretended 
Council of Aries, recorded in a letter to Lucidus, 
written by Faustus, the standard-bearer of the Semi- 
Pelagians; a Council which Sirmundus does not deny 

* Bonk L, De Libero A.rbitrio. 
f Flodoardus, booh iii.. chap. 1 1. 



116 TURRETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

to have been Semi-Pelagian. Augustine, in his age, 
opposed himself to these heretical innovations; so did 
his disciples. Prosper and Fulgcntius, and other preach- 
ers of the grace of Christ, who, travelling in their 
footsteps, boldly defended the truth. The same was 
afterwards asserted by Remigius, bishop of Leyden.* 

The controversy was afterwards renewed amongthe 
Roman Catholics, some of whom taught, like the Semi- 
Pelagians, the doctrine of universal atonement; while 
others, embracing the views of Augustine and his gen- 
uine disciples, restricted the atonement to the elect. 
This controversy was principally between the Jesuits 
and Jansenists. The Jesuits, a genuine branch of 
the Semi-Pelagian sectaries, warmly contend fora uni- 
versal atonement. The Jansenists with greal firmness 
contended that the atonement was restricted to the 
elect. In this they followed Jansenius, the founder of 
their order, who has examined this subject very large- 
ly, and with great solidity of arguments 

The controversy passed from the Romanists to the 
Protestants. The Lutherans follow the Jesuits, and 
contend for a universal satisfaction.^ The Arminians, 
however, called Remonstrants from the remonstrance 

* Liber de fcribusepistolis, et Concilio Valentino III. anno 855 habito. 
t In buo Augnstino, et in Apologia Jansenii, el in Catecbismo de 

Gratia. 

% Eckard. Faseicul. controv. c. 15. De Proedesti. q. 6. Brochmanus 
de gratia Dei. c. 2, q. 17, 18, 19, et alii. 



ITS EXTENT. 117 



which they presented to the Synod of Dort, are its 
great champions. They have indirectly recalled 
Romanism, and have drawn the most of their errors 
from Molinus, Lessius, Suarezius, and other Jesuits. 
From such polluted fountains they have obtained their 
error concerning universal atonement, which is placed 
second among those that were rejected and con- 
demned by the Synod of Dort, as may be seen in the 
second chapter of their " Rejection of Errors concern- 
ing the Death of Christ." 

The doctrine on this subject for which the Armin- 
ians contended at the Synod of Dort, is expressed in 
this manner: — "The price of redemption which Christ 
offered to his Father, was not only in itself sufficient 
for the redemption of the whole human family, but even 
by the decree, will and grace of God the Father, was 
paid for all men and every man, so that no one is, by 
an antecedent decree of God, particularly excluded 
from a participation of its fruits. Christ, by the 
merits of his death, has so far reconciled God to the 
whole human family, that the Father on account of his 
merits, without any impeachment of his truth or jus- 
tice, can enter and wishes to enter into and confirm a 
new covenant of grace with sinful men exposed to 
damnation.*' 1. 1 fence tliey maintain, that according 

to the counsel of God, Chris! so died for all men that 

not only is his death, on account of its own intrinsic 

value, sufficienl for the redemption of all men, but that 
li 5* 



118 TURRETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

agreeably to the will of God it was offered for that 
express purpose: that it was a death in the room of all 
men and for their good, by the intervention of which, 
God ever after willed to deal graciously with all 
men: and hence, that the death of Christ» was not a 
blessing promised in the covenant of grace, but the 
very foundation of it. 2. That by his own intention 
and that of his Father, he has obtained for all men, 
as well those who perish as those who arc saved, a 
restoration into a state of grace and salvation, so that 
no one, on account of original sin, is cither exposed to 
condemnation or will be condemned; but all are freed 
from the guilt of that -in. 3. That Christ, according 
to the counsel of liis Father, delivered himself up to 
death for all men. without any fixed purpose that any 
individual in particular should be saved; so that the ! 
uecessity and utility of the atonement made by the | 
death of Christ might be in every respect preserved, 
although the redemption obtained should not be actu- 
ally applied to one individual of the human family. 
4. That Christ by his atonement merited faith and 
salvation for none, with such certainty, that the atone- 
ment must be applied to them for salvation: but mere- j 
ly acquired for God the Father a perfect will and 
power to treat with man upon a new footing, to enter 
into a covenant either of grace or of works with man. 
and to prescribe whatever conditions he chose; the 
performance of which conditions depends entirely on 



ITS EXTENT. 119 



the free will of man, so that it became possible that 
either all or none should fulfil them. 5. That the 
procurement of salvation is more extensive than its 
application: as salvation was obtained for all but will 
be applied to very few. All these are clearly proved 
to be Arminian tenets, from the Collation published at 
the Hague, and from the expose of their sentiments in 
their remonstrance against the second article of the 
Synod of Dort. 

Those of our ministers, who defend the doctrine of 
universal grace, give great countenance to not a few 
of these Arminian tenets, nay, in a great measure adopt 
them as their own. That they may evince a philan- 
thropy, a love of God towards the whole human family, 
they maintain that Christ was sent into the world by 
the Father as a universal remedy, to procure salvation 
for all men under the condition of faith. They say 
that though the fruit and efficacy of Christ's death will 
be enjoyed by a few only, on whom God, by a special 
decree, has determined to bestow them, yet Christ died 
with an intention to save all, provided they would be- 
lieve.* In this manner, they teach that the decree of 
the death of Christ preceded the decree of election, 
that in sending Christ into the world, no special 
respect was had to the elect any more than to the rcp- 



* The opinion here unfolded is, with very little variation, that of 
the Eopkinsians,- Translator, 



120 



TURBETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 



robatc, and that Christ was appointed to be equally 
the Saviour of all men. They even distinctly assert 
that salvation was not [ntended to be procured for any 
particular persons, but the possibility of salvation for 
all. This, they tell us, was effected by the removal of 
obstacles which justice placed in the way of man's sal- 
vation, which was done by rendering satisfaction to 
justice and thus opening a door of salvation, that 
God reconciled by the atonement might, in consistency 
with the claims of justice, think of entering into a aew 
covenant with man and of bestowing upon him salva- 
tion. But as God foresaw that on account of the 
wickedness of their hearts, none would believe in 
Christ, he. by another special decree, determined to 
bestow upon some faith, thus enabling them to accept 
of salvation and become partakers of it; while the rest 
of the human family would remain in unbelief, and on 
its account would be justly condemned, [n this they 
differ from the Arminians, and embrace in so far the 
truth of the atonement. Such views a-- these which 
we have Btated arc clearly contained in their writings. 
Cameras""" r-ays. " The death of Christ, under the con- 
dition of faith, belongs equally to all men." Testar- 
dus:t "The end of giving Christ for a propitiation in 
his blood was. that a new covenant might lie entered 
into with the whole human family, and that, without 



la Cap. 2. Epist. ad Heb. vet. 9. 



t la Ireai. The. 78, et 79. 






ITS EXTENT. 121 



any impeachment of justice, their salvation might be 
rendered possible, and an offer of it made to them in 
the Gospel. In this sense, indeed, no one who believes 
the word of God can deny that Christ died for all 
men." Amyraut:* "The redemption purchased by 
Christ may be considered in two respects. 1. Abso- 
lutely, in relation to those who actually embrace it. 
2. Conditionally, as offered on such terms, that if any 
one will accept it, he shall become a partaker of it. 
In the former respect it is limited, in the latter univer- 
sal. In like manner its destination is twofold: par- 
ticular, as having the decree to bestow faith connected 
with it; universal, when it is considered separately 
from this decree." This writer says expressly, t 
" Since the misery of the human family is equal and 
universal, and the desire which God has to free them 
from it by a Redeemer, proceeds from the mercy which 
lie exercises towards ivs as his creatures fallen into 
destruction, in which we are all' equal; the grace of 
redemption, which he has procured for us and offers to 
us, should be equal and universal, provided we are 
equally disposed to its reception," &c. 

Though all agree that Christ died for all men, yet 
they explain themselves differently in relation to the 
manner in which he died for nil. As appears from 
th" quotations given above, some say openly that 

* Di.<<. de Gratia Universal!, f Tr. do Prcetlest. cap. 7. 



122 TUBRETTIN <M THE ATOXEMEXT. 

Christ died conditionally for all, and absolutely for 
the elect only. Others, perceiving that this view of 
the subject leads to gross absurdities, are unwilling to 
express themselves in this manner, and rather choose 
to say that Christ did not die for men on condition 
that they would believe, but that his death for all was 
absolute, whether they would believe or not. So that 
free access to salvation was opened for all who would 
by faith accept it: and, all obstacles being removed 
by the death of Christ, a way for a new covenant was 
opened equally to all men: all were placed precisely 
in the Bame salvable slate. Yet they all come to this 
point, that Christ satisfied for all men severally and 
collectively, and obtained for them remission of sins 
and salvation: of which, if many are deprived, the 
cause is not to be sought in any insufficiency of Christ's 
death, nor any failure of will and intention on his 
part, but only in the unbelief of those who wickedly 
reject the salvation offered by Christ. 

But the common opinion of the Reformed Church 
is, that Christ, from the mere good pleasure of his 
Father, was set apart and given as a Redeemer and 
Head, not to all men, but to a definite number, who 
by the decree of God constitute his mystical body. 
They maintain that for these alone, Christ, perfectly 
acquainted with the nature and extent of the work to 
which he was called, in order to accomplish the de- 
cree of their election and the counsel of his Father, 



ITS EXTEXT. 123 



■was willing- and determined to offer himself up a sac- 
rifice, and to the price of his death added an effica- 
cious and special intention to substitute himself in their 
room and acquire for them faith and salvation. 

Whence we easily obtain a distinct statement of the 
question. 

1. It does not respect the value and sufficiency 
of the death of Christ; whether as to its intrinsic 
worth it might be sufficient for the redemption of 
all men. It is confessed by all, that since its value is 
infinite, it would have been sufficient for the redemp- 
tion of the entire human family, had it appeared good 
to God to extend it to the whole world. To this pur- 
pose a distinction is made by the Fathers and retained 
by many divines, "that Christ died sufficiently for all, 
but efficiently for the elect only" This is perfectly 
true, if it be understood of the dignity of Christ's 
death, though the phrase is not accurate if it be re- 
ferred to the will and purpose of Christ. The ques- 
tion which we discuss concerns the purpose of the 
Father in sending his Son, and the intention of the 
Son iii dying. Did the Father destine his Son for 
a Saviour to ;il! men and every man, and did the Son 
deliver himself tip to. death, with a design to substitute 
himself in the room of all men of all mi t ions, to make 
satisfaction and acquire salvation for them? Or, did 
he resolve to give himself for theelecl only, who were 
given him by the Father to he redeemed, and whose 



124 



TUERETTIX ox the atonement. 



Head he was to be? The pivot on which the contro- 
versy turns is, what was the purpose of the Father in 
sending his Son to «lie. and the object which Christ 
had in view in dying; not what is the value and effi- 
cacy of his death. Bence the question docs not, as 
some learned divines have affirmed, respect the revealed 
will of God, but his secret will, his decree, to which, 
as all must agree, the mission and death of Christ are 
to be referred. 

2. We do not inquire, respecting the fruits and 
efficacy of Christ's death, whether all will actually be 
partakers of these? which was anciently held by 
Puccius and Huberus. Our opponents extend these 
to believers only. Bui the question refers to the de- 
sign of Cod in sending his Son into the world, and 
the purpose of Christ in his death. Were these such 
that Christ, by substituting himself in the room of 
each and every man. made satisfaction and obtained 
the pardon of .-in ami salvation for them all: or wai 
his work designed for the elect only? Our oppo- 
nents say the former: we say the latter. 

3. We do not inquire whether the death of Christ 
gives occasion to the imparting of some blessings even 
to reprobates. Because it is in . consequence of the 
death of Christ that the Gospel is preached to all 
nations, that the gross idolatry of many heathen na- 
tions has been abolished, that the daring impiety of 
men is greatly restrained by the word of God. that 



ITS EXTEXT. 125 



multitudes of the human family obtain many and ex- 
cellent blessings, though not saving gifts, of the Holy 
Spirit. It is unquestionable that all these flow from 
the death of Christ, for there would have been no 
place for them in the Church, unless Christ had died. 
The question is, whether the suretyship and satisfac- 
tion of Christ were, by the will of God and purpose 
of Christ, destined for every individual of Adam's 
posterity, as our opponents teach; or for the elect 
only, as we maintain. 

We embrace this opinion for the following reasons: 

I. The mission and death of Christ are restricted to 
a limited number — to his -people, his sheep, his friends, 
his Church, his body; and nowhere extended to all 
men severally and collectively. Thus, Christ " is 
called Jesus, because he shall save his people from 
their sins.'"'" He is called the Saviour of his body.\ 
" The good shepherd who lays down his life for the 
8heep"\ and "for hisfriends. v § He is said "to die — 
thai he mighl gather together in one, Me children of 
God that were scattered abroad. HI It is said that 
Christ •" hath purchased the Church [or his flock] with 
hia own blood. "1 If Christ died for every one of 
Adam's posterity, why should the Scriptures so often 

* Matt. i. 21. f Eph v. 2:5. % John \. 15. 

§ John xv. 13. || John xi. 52. 

H Acts xx, 28. Eph. v. 25, 2G. 



126 



TURRETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 



restrict the object of his death to a few? How could 
it, with propriety. be said absolutely that Christ is 
the Saviour of his people and of his body, if he is the 
Saviour of others also? How could it in the same 
way lie said that he laid down his life for his sheep, 
for the sons of God, and for the Church, if. according 
to the will and purpose of God, he died for others 
also? Would this bea greater proof ofhis love and a 
firmer ground of consolation ? 

To this argument in general it is objected: (1.) "That 
the Scripture, which in these passages appears to limit 
the atonement to a few. elsewhere extends it to all." 
This objection is more specious than solid. The uni- 
versality alluded to is no) absolute, but limited; one 
which does not refer to all the individuals of the hu- 
man family, but to individuals of all nation-: as will 
be shown at large hereafter. (2.) Another objection 
i-. •• thai in tin- j,exts quoted above, the satisfaction is 
not considered separately, but in connection with its 
application which i< limited, though the satisfaction 
separately considered is universal." To this we reply, 
that the words and phrases which the Holy Spirit 
uses in the text- cited above — such as, "the Saviour" 
"to lay down life for one" "to give himself for one" 
tve, properly denote satisfaction, the procuring of 
salvation. And although they imply the application 
of the thing obtained, yet this does not weaken the 
force of the argument; because the atonement and its 



ITS EXTENT. 127 



application are inseparably connected, and are of the 
same extent; all which will be proved in the proper 
place. (3.) Again, it is objected, that " Christ died 
absolutely for some and conditionally for others." 
This, however, takes for granted what ought to be 
proved. It is altogether gratuitous to say that 
Christ in his death had a twofold intention: one con- 
ditional, which extended to all; the other absolute, 
which was limited to a few. The Scripture nowhere 
countenances such a distinction; it always represents 
the application of the atonement as conditional, but 
the making of it never. The nature of the thing does 
not, indeed, admit of such a distinction; for, accord- 
ing to the hypothesis of the objectors, there was no 
consideration of the elect in the decree according to 
which Christ died; and they admit that he died with 
the same purpose with which the decree was passed; 
for the execution must be agreeable to the plan. 
Chrisl and the Father must have precisely the same 
objeci in view ]jy his death. They say that the elect 
were separated by a posterior decree; but if Christ 
was destined l<> die for all before the elect were 
aeparated from the reprobate, he must have died for 
the elect and the reprobate in the same way. God 
decreed all things by one simple ad, though we have 
in conceive of the decree by parts: who, then, can be- 
lieve (hat in one Bimple act, Cud had two intentions 
bo diverse, do! i<» Bay contrary, (hat in one manner 



12S TURRETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

Christ should die for all, and in another for some 
only? Nay, since Christ could not will to die abso* 
lutely for the elect, without involving, by the law of 
contraries, a will not to die for the reprobate, it is in- 
conceivable how in one act he should will both to die 
for the reprobate, and not to die tor them. (4.) An- 
other objection is. that "though these passages speak 
of the elect, yet they do not speak of them exclu- 
sively of all others: as. when Paul says that Christ 
was delivered for him. ho does not exclude others." 
To this 1 answer, that though those texts upon which 
I rely do not explicitly exclude all others, yet they 
contain, in their description of those for whom Christ 
died, certain circumstances which clearly exclude oth- 
er-. Though the blessing is promised to the seed of 
Abraham, without saying to the seed of Abraham 
atom, yet it is sufficiently clear that the blessing was 
strictly confined to Abraham's seed. The object of 
the passages quoted is to illustrate and magnify the 
love of Christ towards his sheep for whom he lays 
down his life; towards his Church and people for 
whom he delivered himself up to death. .But how 
will this exalt the love of Christ towards them, if 
they have no prerogative, no claims in his death 
above the reprobate? Why should the immense love 
of Christ, who lays down his life and sheds his blood, 
be applied specially to the people of God? The ex- 
ample of Paul does not strengthen the objection; for 



ITS EXTENT. 129 



the apostle does not speak of this as a blessing pecu- 
liar to himself, but as one common to himself and the 
other elect or believers, to whom he proposes himself 
as an example, that they might be able to say the 
same thing of themselves because they were in the 
same state. 

But there are also particular objections to each of 
the passages we have quoted. 

To the words of the Evangelist Matthew, it is said, 
that " though Christ is called the Saviour of his 
-people, in a peculiar sense, on account of salvation's 
being actually bestowed upon them, yet there is no 
reason why he should not be the Saviour of others 
also, on account of having obtained salvation for 
them, though, in consequence of their unbelief, they 
will never be made partakers of it; and that, in refer- 
ence to this, Paul says that God is the Saviour of all 
men, especially of them that believe."* It is gratuitous 
to say that Christ is the Saviour of some, for whom 
he lias purchased salvation, but to whom it will never 
lie applied. It is to take for granted what ought to 
lir proved. The very expression, to save, denotes the 
actual communication of salvation. Christ is Jesus, 

not, only because he is willing and able to save, and 

because he removes all obstacles out of the way of 
salvation, but because he doe-; in reality save his peo- 



i Tim. iv. in. 



130 



TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



pie, both by meritoriously acquiring salvation for 
them, and effectually applying it to them. That sueh 
was the intention of God in sending Christ, and the 
end of his mission, is clearly intimated by the imposi- 
tion of the name Jesus by the angel. The pa 
quoted from Paul's Epistle to Timothy does not show 
the contrary; for the word which is in that passage 
translated Saviour, in its most extensive sense denotes 
Preserver; and when it is said thai he is the Saviour 
of men, the meaning is thai he is the preserver of all 
men, that he upholds or preserves them in their present 
lit-'. It is taken in a more strict and limited sense 
when it is applied to believers, winch is denoted by the 
word especially. In what other sense than as tie' up- 
holder of all men, can he l>" said to be the Saviour of 
men who finally perish? To say that Christ, by his 
death, intended to save them, will not solve the diffi- 
culty, for we do not call a man a saviour who intends 
to save another, lad him who does it actually. Now 
Christ does actually uphold men in this life, for in 
him we live, and move, and have our being* In this the 
apostle alludes to a passage in the Psalms where God 
i- said to save man and beast. t Whence Chrysos- 
tom, CEcuinenius, Primasius, and Ambrose say "thai 
he is the Saviour of all in the present life, but of the 
faithful only as to eternal life." And Thomas, "he is 
the preserver of the present and future life, because he 

* Acts xvii. 2a t Paal. xxxvi. 7. 



ITS EXTENT. 131 



saves all men with a bodily salvation, and thus he is 
called the Saviour of all men; he also saves the right- 
eous with both a bodily and spiritual salvation, and is 
hence said to be the Saviour especially of them that 
believe." 

To the passage from John's Gospel, it is objected, 
" that those sheep, for whom Christ is said to have laid 
down his life, are not said to be the elect only." The con- 
text proves incontrovertibly that it can apply to none 
but the elect. Christ is speaking concerning sheep 
who hear his voice and follow him, whom he has 
known and loves intensely, and whom he must bring 
into one fold under one shepherd, (v. 15, 16.) Those 
sheep for whom Christ lays down his life, shall be 
put in possession of eternal life, and no man shall be 
able to pluck them out of the Father's hand, which 
things can be affirmed of none but the elect, who are 
called sheep, both on account of their eternal destina- 
tion to life, and their actual and effectual calling in 
time. Nor let it be objected, " that he is said to have 
laid down his life for his sheep, because they alone 
shall enjoy the fruits of his death, whilst others, on 
account of their unbelief, receive no benefit, from his 
expiatory Bacrifice. Thus, to die for some, either sig- 
ihat death is suffered simply with an intention 
to profit some, which is true in respeel of nil: or, with 
an intention that they shall be profited in reality, 
which is true in relation to slurp only." For, in an- 



132 TURRETTIX OX THE ATONEMENT. 

swer to this objection, consider that to lay down life for 
some, can no more be referred to the enjoyment of the 
fruits of Christ's death, than when it is said, that he 
gave himself a ransom for all. There is no solid mi- 
son why the former phrase should be referred both to 
the intention and to the effect, but the latter restrict 
ed to the intention of bestowing help. It cannot be 
conceived that there is any difference between these 
two. He who dies for any one that he may profit 
him, intends that he for whom he dies shall be profited 
in reality; and he will in reality profit him if he can. 
Now. can any one assign a reason why Christ gains 
"the object which he had in view, as to his sheep, but 
misses his aim as to the rest? Equally unsubstantial 
is the objection, " that Christ could not lay down Ins 
life for his Bheep as such; because, then they would 
have been his sheep before he died for them and pur- 
chased them lor his own: hence, he died for them 
merely as sinners, which character belongs to them in 
common With others, and that hence he must have laid 
down his life in this way for others." To this 1 reply, 
that though they were not actually his sheep, yet they 
wcre so by destination. They had been Lnvcn to 
Christ to be purchased and redeemed by him as the 
good shepherd who must shed his blood for their re- 
demption. By the decree of God they were given to 
him. before they were actually in his hands." 1 ' Nay, 

* Jolin xvii. 24. 



ITS EXTENT. ' ldi 



the mission of Christ is founded in that donation. 
" And this is the Father's will who hath sent me, that 
of all which he hath given me I should lose none, but 
should raise it up again at the last day."* Had there 
not been a fixed number contemplated by God when 
he appointed Christ to die, then the effects of Christ's 
death would have been uncertain, and the mystery of 
our redemption might have been rendered utterly vain 
and fruitless, by the perverseness of man in refusing 
to accept it. 

To Ephes. v. 25, and Tit. ii. 14, the objection is, that 
" although Christ is said to have given hiinself/or his 
people, for his Church, yet it is not expressly said that 
he gave himself for none others." We answer, that 
from the expressions used in these passages, and from 
the nature of the thing, it is clearly deducible that his 
offering of himself was so restricted. Because, the 
giving of himself, which the Apostle describes, arises 
from the love of Christ towards his Church as his 
spouse, and such a love necessarily excludes a similar 
love to others. In the preceding verse the Apostle 
gives this commandment, " Husbands, love your wives." 
Now, though he docs not add, " let your love of women 
be confined to your wives," yet all will acknowledge 
thai Bueh a restriction is necessarily implied in the 
Apostl<:'.H command. Who would hear, without indig- 



John \i. 89. 



134 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

nation, the adulterer plead thus in vindication of his 
crime: "It is indeed said, husbands, lore your vires, hut 
it is not said, love those alone !" The giving of him- 
self which is here attributed to Christ, is one which 
has for its object the sanctification of his Church and 
its salvation: both the procuring and applying of sal- 
vation, which belong to the elect and to the elect only. 
Since he delivered himself up for none except for this 
end, how can he be said to have delivered himself for 
those who will not attain that end? 

It is objected to the passages Matt. xx. 28,x.\\ 
and Heb. ix. 28, that "many is not opposed to all, but 
to one or a few, as is don'- Rom. v. 11». and Daniel xii. 
1, and that many is often put for all." But the 
"many" of which the apostle and the evangelisl treat, 
are described by Buch characters aa cannot be applied 
to all men of all nations. For, of the many hero 
spoken of, it is said, "that he gave himself a ransom,'' 
or actually substituted himself in their room, that he 
shed his blood for the remission of their sins, and " that 
he offered himself to bear their sins" i. •'.. that their -ins 
might be through his atoning sacrifice really taken 
away. Though many is sometime- opposed to one or 
a few, yet it is not necessary, on that account, to un- 
derstand it so in these passages, for it is often used 
when all cannot be included. Jerome, in his comment 
on Matthew xx., says, "The evangelist doe- nol say 
that Christ gave himself for all, but for many, i. e., for 



ITS EXTEXT. 135 



all those who would believe," who are none other than 
the elect in whom God works both to will and to do. 
A gloss interlined on Jerome's book adds these words, 
'' for many, not for all; but for those who were pre- 
destinated to life." 

II. We further argue that the atonement was defi- 
nite, from the fact that Christ ivas destined to die for 
none but those icho were given him by the Father. All 
men universally were not given to Christ, but a limited 
number only. Since, in the council of the Father 
which regulated Christ's death and defined its object, 
there was a designation, not only of Christ as Media- 
tor, but also of those for whose redemption and salva- 
tion he was to suffer; it is plain that he could die for 
only who were in this sense given him. Here 
we may remark a twofold donation. One of Christ 
to men, another of men to Christ. Christ was given 
to men for the purpose of saving them, and men to 
Christ that through him they might be saved. The 
former is referred to in Isa. ix. 6, and xlix. 6, as well 
as in all those places in which he is said to be given 
and -'nt to us; the latter is alluded to in the places 
where mention is made of those given to Christ, as in 
•John xvii. 2, 6, 1_, and vi. 37. Seeing this twofold 
giving is reciprocal, each of diem musl be of the same 
extent: bo that Christ is given for none but those who 
are given to him, and all those are given to Christ for 



136 TTJBRETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

whom lie is given. Now, it is abundantly plain that 
some men only, and not all men, were given to Christ. 
This is asserted in many texts of Scripture, where those 
who arc given to him are distinguished from other 
men. " Thou hast given him power over u\\ flesh, 
that he might give eternal life to as many as thou hast 
give!) him. I have manifested thy name unto the men 
whom thou hast given me out of the world; thine they 
were, and thougavest them me."'"" The Scripture des- 
ignates those whom the Father gave him by such 
phrases as these: the people whom lie foreknew;! heirs 
and children of promise;! the seed of Abraham, nol 
carnal, but spiritual, both of the Jews and Gentiles;§ 
his people, his body, the Church: vessels of mercy pre- 
pared to glory:" choseD in Christ, predestinated to the 
adoption of sons and to conformity to his image;** 
and the posterity of the second Adam, all of whom are 
to be quickened in Christ, in opposition to the poster- 
ity of the first Adam, in whom all die.ff From all 
which it appears, that Christ was qoI given for all of 
all nations, but for a limited number only. 

To no purpose will our opponents reply, that '"the 
giving of Christ was conditional, not absolute; that 
the condition was that all who would by faith receive 

* John xvii. 2, 6. t Rom. xi. 2. 

f Rom. ix. 8. § Rom. iv. 13. Gal. iii. 18. Heb. ii. 16. 

II Matt i. 21. Epli. v. 23. ' Rom. ix. 24. 

** Rom. viii. 30. Eph. i. 4, 5. ft 1 Cor. xv. 22, 23. 



ITS EXTENT. 137 



the offered salvation, should be made partakers of it; 
and since this was not to be the case with all, it is not 
surprising that they derive no advantage from it." 
This is a begging of the question; it is without foun- 
dation in Scripture, which nowhere mentions such a 
conditional giving of Christ. Though faith is pro- 
posed as a means and condition necessary to the re- 
ception of Christ, and the enjoyment of the blessings 
offered in the Gospel, yet it does not follow that it was 
a condition to the giving of Christ, since faith itself is 
a gift of grace and one of the fruits of Christ's being 
delivered up for sinners. Further, if the giving of 
Christ rested upon any condition, the condition must 
depend either upon God or upon man. The latter of 
these can bo affirmed by none but a Pelagian; if the 
former be affirmed, then it comes to this, that Christ 
is said to be given to us as a Saviour by God on these 
terms, that he will bestow him on us on condition of 
his working faith in us; which faith, however, he will 
not give, though he alone is able to give it. How 
glaring an absurdity! 

Our view is further confirmed by the connection of 
thai twofold relation to us, which Christ sustains: the 
relation of a Surety, and that of a Head. He is our 
surety, thai he may acquire salvation for us, by ren- 
dering to justice that satisfaction which it demands, 
lb- is our bead, in order to apply this Balvation to us, 
by working in \\~ faith and repentance, through the 



138 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

effectual operation of his Holy Spirit upon our 
hearts. Hence, as he is not given as a head to all 
men, but to his members only, or, which is the same 
thing, to the elect, who arc actually to partake of sal- 
vation, he cannot be the surety or sponsor of any- 
other than these. Of whomsoever he is the surety, 
he is also tin 1 head. The one cannot be extended fur- 
ther than the other. This also appears from the con- 
nection between the death and resurrection of Christ, 
in which there is the same twofold relation. Since he 
died as surety, he must rise as head, as the reasons 
for his death and resurrection are the same; nor can 
any reason be given, why the ground of the one 
should be more extensive than that of the other. 
Hence it is, that the Apostle Paul speaks of these as 
being equal in efficacy and extent: " Christ died for 
our sins, and rose again for our justification."* 
"That he died for all, that they which live, should 
not live unto themselves, but unto him who died for 
them, and rose again. "t Hence it cannot be said 
that he died for any others than those for whom he 
rose, because no one will be a partaker of the fruits 
of Christ's death, unless by his resurrection. But 
that he did not rise as a head to confer salvation 
upon all, is self-evident. 

* Rom. it. 25. t 2 Cor. ir. 15. 



ITS EXTENT. 139 



III. The same doctrine is established by the connec- 
tion between the atonement and the intercession of Christ. 
As they are both parts of his priestly office, they must 
be of the same extent; so that for all for whom he 
made satisfaction, he should also intercede, and not 
make atonement for those who will never have a 
place in his intercession. The object of his propitia- 
tion and of his appearance in the presence of God 
must be one, since the Apostles Paul and John repre- 
sent their connection as indissoluble.* That he does 
not intercede for all, but only for those who are given 
him by the Father, Christ himself expressly declares: 
" I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast 
given me out of the. world."f When it is so much more 
easy to pray for any one than to lay down life for them, 
will any one say that Christ would die for those for 
whom he would not pray? Will they say that at the 
very moment before his death he would refuse his 
prayers on behalf of those for whom he is just about 
to shed hi- blood? 

The objection which the Remonstrants or Arminians 
offer is frivolous: "that there is a twofold interccs- 
-ion of Christ: one universal, which is made for the 
whole world, of which intercession Isaiah speaks, liii. 
1::. and agreeably to which ho is said to have prayed 
for his murderers;:{: another particular, which is made 

* ] John, ii. !. '-'. Bom. \iii. 34 

t John xvii. 9. J Luke xxiii. 34. 



140 TUBBETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

for believers only, which is spoken of, John ix. and 
Rom. viii." The objection rests not on any founda- 
tion, either in Scripture or reason. As Christ is al- 
ways heard and answered by the Father* if he prays 
for all, all will Vie saved. The doctrine of universal 
intercession is not taught by the Prophet Isaiah, 
whore ho says. " he made intercession for the trans- 
gressors; rj [ for it is not said that he made intercession 
for all, but for many avIioso character is delineated 
by tin 1 prophet, in a preceding verse, as those who 
shall be justified by Christ, it is not said, Luke 
xxiii. 4, that ho prayed for all those who crucified 
him, but for those who knew not what they did: and 
we are assured that these obtained pardon, no doubt 
the fruit of the prayer which Christ offered up on the 
cross to the Father.}: Nor if Christ, through the im- 
pulse of humane affections of love, prayed for those 
who perished, is it to be considered that the ini 
Bory prayers, which he offered as Mediator and in the 
discharge of his special office, are to be extended to 
others than the eleet given him by the Father. To 
the eleet Christ himself restricts Ids intercessory 
prayers. 

This argument will not be weakened by objecting 
that it is the world of unbelievers only, who are ex- 
cluded from the prayers of Christ, those who are 

* John ax 42. f Isa. xxiii. 12. X Acts ii. iii. 



ITS EXTENT. 141 



guilty of rejecting the Gospel, and hate believers, (v. 
14,) but not the world chosen by God, for the redemp- 
tion of which he has sent his Son." The object of 
Christ's intercessory prayers is to obtain for believers 
perseverance in grace. The world, for which Christ 
says he does not pray, is opposed to those given him 
by his Father in the decree of election; the world, 
then, of which he speaks must embrace all the repro- 
bate who were not given to Christ, and this antece- 
dently to their rejection of the offered salvation. 
They were passed by as sinners, whether their sins 
were want of faith in the Gospel, or merely viola- 
tions of the law of nature. As the act of God by 
which he chose to pass by a certain number of men 
and not appoint them to salvation, was done from 
eternity, there never existed a period when they, the 
world for whom Christ docs not pray, were viewed in 
any other light, than as excluded from the benefits of 
his mediation and intercession. It forms no objection 
to this, that God is said " to have so loved the world, 
that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever 
believeth On him should not perish;" because, as will 
be made to appear in the proper place, this does not ex- 
tend to all men of all nations, but to the elect of 
t'very cation. Though he prays for the apostles who 
were theo believers, and asks for them perseverance, 



John 



142 TUREETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

yet it does not follow that he prays for them us be- 
lievers only, and in consequence of their faith: for 
Christ (v.* 19, 23) prays for all who should after- 
wards believe. " That they may be sanctified through 
the truth and made perfect in one." Now, as this 
sanctification and attainment to perfection could not 
be effected without the instrumentality of faith, Christ 
must have prayed for faith to be given them. Hence, 
even that faith by which the Gospel is embraced, is 
given to believers in consequence of Christ's interces- 
sory prayers. Further, as Christ declares that he 
sanctifies himself for those who arc the objects of that 
intercessory prayer, that they may be sanctified 
through the truth; and as none are thus sanctified 
but the elect, the conclusion is irresistible, that 
Christ's intercessory prayers are extended to the 
elect only, those who shall lie saved with an everlast- 
ing salvation. 

IV. The inseparable connection between the gift of 
Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit bears testimony 
the most conclusive to the definite atonement. As 
these two gifts, the most excellent which Cod has be- 
stowed on us, are always in Scripture joined together 
as cause and effect* they must be of equal extent 
and go together; so that the Son is not given 

* John xvi. 7. Gal. iv. 4, 6. Rom. viii. 9. 1 John iii. 24. 



ITS EXTENT. 143 



to acquire salvation for any others, than those to 
whom the Spirit was given to apply the salvation 
procured. No reason can be assigned why the gift of 
the Son should be more extensive than the gift of the 
Holy Spirit. It is plain that the Holy Spirit is given 
to none but the elect. Hence, if there be any har- 
mony between the work of the Son and that of the 
Holy Spirit, in the economy of salvation, Christ was 
given to die for the elect, and for them only. Perti- 
nent to this purpose is the argument of the Apostle Paul, 
in which, from the giving of Christ, he infers the com- 
munication of every blessing. " He that spared not 
his own Son, but freely delivered him up for us all, 
how shall he not with him also freely give us all 
tilings?"* The apostle reasons from the greater to 
the less. Surely he who gave his Son, which incon- 
trovcrtibly was the greater gift, will not refuse to 
give us faith and all other saving blessings, which are 
the less; and this the rather, because, as we shall 
■iily prove, Christ, by delivering himself up, has 
merited for us, together with salvation, all those gifts. 
Whence the conclusion is inevitable: either all thpse 
blessings shall be given to the reprobate, if Christ 
died for them; or if they are not given them, which is 
granted by all, then Christ did not die for them, i. e., 
he did not die for all. This is not answered by alleg- 

* Rom. viii. 32. 



144 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



ing that the apostle speaks of Christ's being- given in 
a special manner to the believers. For, as was said 
above, the supposition of a universal giving is gratui- 
tous, and nowhere countenanced in Scripture; and 
since faith is a fruit of Christ's death, it cannot be a 
condition antecedent to his death. Further, since, 
according to the order which is laid down by our 
learned opponents themselves, the decree concerning 
Christ's death was antecedent to the decree relative 
to bestowing faith; it is inconceivable how at one and 
the same time, and in the self-same simple act, Christ 
could be delivered up for all, and for some only. 

V. Another argument is, the superlative love of 
Christ towards those for whom he died, lie loved 
them with the most ardent affection. Greater love 
has no one, than that one should lay down his life 
for Ms friend.* In the same exalted strain docs the 
Apostle Paul extol the love of Christ:— he speaks of 
it as truly wonderful and unheard of among men. 
"Scarcely for a righteous man will one die, yet pel* 
adventure for a good man some would dare even to 
die. But God commendeth his love toward- us, in 
that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. r t 
But this cannot be said of all men. and every man; 
for I presume that all men arc agreed, that Christ 

* John xv. 13. t Rom. ▼■ 7, 8. 



ITS EXTENT. 145 



loved Peter more than Judas. It is inconceivable 
how Christ could love with ineffable ardour of affec- 
tion those whom, as an inexorable judge, he had 
already consigned, or had resolved by an irrevo- 
cable decree to consign, to mansions of endless woe 
and despair. It cannot with any colour of propriety 
be said that Christ and his apostle are treating 
of external acts of, love. For, besides that exter- 
nal acts of love presuppose those which are inter- 
nal; if Christ exercises to each and to all external 
acts of love so great that none can be greater, it 
follows that he has done, and still does so much for 
those who perish, that it is impossible for him to do 
more for the elect who shall be saved; than which 
nothing can be more absurd. Nor, if he loves some 
of the elect more than others, so far as regards the 
internal gifts of his Spirit, a diversity of which is 
necessary to the perfection of his mystical body, does 
it follow from this, that the disposition of his soul 
towards each of them as to the promotion of their 
good, is not supremely tender and affectionate. 

VI. The same doctrine is inferred from the nature 
of Christ's suretyship. For It imports the substitution 
of Chrisl in our room, so that In' died not only for 
OUT good, but in OUT place, as was said before, and 
proved against tin' disciples of Socinus. Hence, 
from the nature of his suretyship, he must assume to 



146 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

himself all the debt of those whose persons he sus- 
tains; and liquidate it as perfectly as if they them- 
selves had done it in their own persons. Can it be 
conceived that those for whom he died and satisfied 
in this manner, may yet be subjected to eternal 
vengeance, and bound to suffer again deserved punish- 
ment? This question must be answered in the affirm- 
ative by all those who assert that Christ died for 
many who shall not be saved by his death; and yet to 
say bo is to impeach the justice and veracity of God. 
For if, in consequence of his suretyship, the debt has 
been transferred to Christ and by him discharged, 
every one maai see that it has been taken away from 
the primary debtors, so that payment cannot be de- 
manded from them. They must forever afterwards 
remain free, absolved from all obligation to punish- 
ment. Pertinent to this purpose are- all those pas- 
sages of Scripture which assert that our sins were so 
laid upon Christ, that the chastisement of our peace 
wae upou him, and that by his stripes we are healed* 
and those which declare that he was made a curse for 
us that we might be made the righteousness and bless- 
ing of God in him.t 

VII. Christ died for those only for whom he procured 
and to whom he applies salvation. As he procured and 

* Isa. liii. 5, C. t 2 Cor. v. 21. Gal. iii. 13. 



ITS EXTENT. 147 



applies salvation to the elect only, hence for them only 
he died. That Christ did not die for any but those 
for whom he procured salvation, and to whom he will 
apply it, appears, first, from the divinely appointed 
object of his death, which was to procure salvation 
for us; and, secondly, from the fact that the procuring 
cannot be separated from the application; what other 
end can there be in procuring a thing, but that it may 
be applied? A thing is procured in vain, which is 
never applied. Hence it follows, that if salvation is 
procured for all, it will and must be applied to all. If 
it be not applied to all, but to the elect only, then it 
was not procured for all, but for the elect only. In 
vain it is objected, "that Christ's death was not 
intended so much to procure salvation, as to remove 
all the obstacles which justice threw in the way to 
prevent God from thinking of our salvation." From 
this view of the subject, Christ rather procured for us 
the possibility of being saved than salvation itself, and 
placed it in the power of the Father to enter into a 
new covenant with man; an Arminian error long since 
condemned by the Synod of Dort as an injury to 
Christ's cross and to the efficacy of his mediation. 
How can Chrisl be said to have given himself a ran- 
BOm, a price of redemption for us, to obtain for us 
eternal Balvation, to redeem us from all iniquity, and 
other things of the same kind, whieh denote not the 
possibility, but actual procuring of salvation, if, after 



148 TURRETTIX OX THE ATONEMENT. 

all, lie only rendered it possible that we might be 
saved? 

Another objection equally futile is, that " redemp- 
tion was procured for all with a design that it should 
be applied to all. provided they would not reject it." 
This cannot be asserted with respect to an innumera- 
ble number, to whom Christ has never been offered, 
and Avho do not know him even in name. If it be 
alleged that Christ proposed to himself an object so 
vain and fruitless as a thing which was never to hap- 
pen, and which could not happen without his gift, 
which he determined not to give, what an indignity is 
offered to his wisdom ! It represents Christ as saying-, 
I wish to obtain salvation for all, to tin; end that it 
may lie applied to them, will they but believe; how- 
ever, I am resolved not to reveal this redemption to 
all and to refuse to innumerable multitudes to whom 
it is revealed, that condition which is the only means 
by which it can Ik- applied to them. Shall men 
make the infinitely wise and holy Jesus say, I de- 
sire that to come to pass, which I know neither will 
nor can take place; and I am even unwilling that it 
should, for I refuse to communicate the only means by 
which it can ever be brought to pass, and the granting 
of this means depends upon myself alone? What a 
shameful indignity does this offer to the wisdom of 
Immanuel ! It would be an insult to the understand- 
ing of frail man. Nor will the matter be amended 



ITS EXTENT. 149 



by saying that the failure of the application is not to 
be attributed to Christ, but to the wickedness and un- 
belief of man. This is* not less injurious to the 
honour of Christ, for it represents him either as not 
foreseeing-, or as not capable of preventing those im- 
pediments, which obstruct the application of the sal- 
vation he obtained, and thus make it fruitless. They 
indeed allege that it was not in vain, though it fails of 
success; because, however men treat the salvation 
offered them, Christ will not miss the prime object 
which he had in view in his death; that is, to provide 
pardon and salvation for every, man if he will only 
believe and repent — a thing which before was pre- 
vented by the inexorable rigour of divine justice. All 
this does not remove the absurdity. The object in 
procuring salvation could be none other than its 
application; and it cannot but be in vain, if it fails to 
accomplish this object. Christ needed to die for men, 
not to procure for them pardon and salvation under a 
condition which it is impossible for them to comply 
with, but to obtain for them actual pardon and re- 
demption. 

This is confirmed from the manner in which Christ 
procured salvation; for if the procuring extended to 
all, it must be either absolute or conditional. The 
former will not be asserted, for then all men, univer- 
sally, would be saved. The latter is equally inad- 
missible; for, 1st. VYIki! is procured conditionally, is 



150 TURRETTTN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

not, properly speaking, procured at all, but only a 
mere possibility of its being procured, provided the 
condition is complied with. • 2d. Christ has procured 
the condition itself either for all, or for some only. 
If he has acquired the condition for all, then all will 
assuredly be saved; for this condition could be obtain- 
ed for them in no other way than absolutely; unless, 
indeed, they would say that there is a condition of a 
condition, which is absurd, as tending to stretch out 
into an endless chain of conditions; yet even then all 
these conditional conditions will lie, on the present 
supposition, purchased by Christ. If the condition, by 
which the salvation is to be obtained, has been pro- 
cured for some only, then the salvation has not been 
fully procured for all. The procuring has been par- 
tial and defective in the most essential point. In this 
view, vain and delusive lias been the act by which sal- 
vation is said to have been provided; for the condition 
annexed to it is one with which the sinner is utterly 
unable to comply, which will never be performed, and 
which God not only foresaw would never be com- 
plied with, but also decreed not to give the power 
to fulfil, while he alone is able to give it. Finally, 
this subterfuge represents Christ as having had 
a double intention in his atonement: one condi- 
tional, in favour of all; the other absolute, in favour 
of the elect; a representation unsupported by reve- 
lation, and irreconcilable with the unity and sun- 



ITS EXTEXT. 151 



plicity of the decree which appointed the death of 

Christ. 

VIII. Another argument is found in the fact that 
Christ did not purchase faith for all men. Christ suf- 
fered death for those only, for whom he merited sal- 
vation, and with salvation all the means necessary to 
put them in possession of it, especially faith and repent- 
ance, and the Holy Spirit, the author of both; with- 
out which salvation is unattainable. That he pur- 
chased faith, repentance, and the graces of the Holy 
Spirit, for all men universally, cannot be said; for then 
all men would necessarily be saved by his death. He 
procured them for the elect only; therefore for the 
elect only he died. This argument is irresistible, un- 
less it is denied that Christ purchased those means of 
salvation. But that Christ purchased faith for man, 
is proved by abundant scriptural testimony. 1. He 
is aaid to be* "the author and finisher of our faith." If 
he is the author of our faith, he must be its purchaser, 
for he bestows nothing on us, which he has not pro- 
cured for us by his merits. 2. Christ is the meritori- 
ous cause of salvation. To him and his merits we arc 
therefore indebted for every part of it, for everything 
which contributes to our salvation. But faith and 
Bpiritual life which he works and implants in us, are 

* Hub. xii. 2. Acta \. 81. 



152 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



the chief part of our salvation. 3. Christ is the cause 
and foundation of all spiritual blessings:* " Who 
hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ." 
And of these faith is one of the greatest. Hence it is 
elsewhere said.t " It is given you on the part of Christ 
not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his 
sake." In what other sense can faith be said to be 
given us for Christ's sake, but because he purchased 
it for us? 4. Christ promised to send the Spirit; who 
therefore is poured out or distributed by him. Hence 
the Spirit is spoken of as one of the fruits of Christ's 
death.} All the gifts of the Spirit, especially faith, 
are therefore the fruits of Christ's purchase. Here 
we arc not to distinguish between the Spirit as sancti- 
fying and comforting, and the Spirit as imparting 
spiritual illumination: as if Christ had merited the 
former only, and not the latter. For as all the graces 
of the heart proceed from the same Spirit, he who 
acquired for us the Spirit, the author of these graces, 
must also have acquired with him all his gifts; and as 
faith is the principle and root of our sanctification, he 
who purchased the Spirit who sanctifies, must also 
have purchased "faith, which purifieth the heart." 
5. Christ could not be a full and perfect Saviour, unless 
he had procured for us faith, without which it is impossi- 
ble to be made partakers of salvation. This doctrine 

* Eph. i. 3. t PW. i- 29 - t John xvi - '• 



ITS EXTENT. 153 



has been uniformly taught in the Reformed Church. 
They maintained that Christ had not less procured for 
us faith, than salvation, and that he is the cause of all 
the gifts which the Father bestows upon us. Hence 
the venerable divines of the Synod of Dort, in their 
exhibition of the doctrines of truth, say* " Christ, by 
his death, purchased for us faith and all the other 
saving graces of the Spirit." And to the same purpose, 
in their " Rejection of Errors,"! they condemn " those 
who teach that Christ, by his satisfaction, did not 
merit salvation for any definite number, and also that 
faith by which his satisfaction is efficaciously applied 
for salvation, but that he purchased no more than a 
power and entire willingness for the Father to enter 
into a new covenant with man, and to prescribe what- 
ever conditions he might think fit; compliance with 
which conditions depended upon the free will of man; 
BO that either all, or none might fulfil them. Such 
teachers think too meanly of the death of Christ, are 
ignorant of its glorious fruits and blessings, and rccal 
from hell the Pelagian heresy." 

It is a vain distinction which some make here re- 
specting the decree. They say that " we must distin- 
guish between the decree to deliver Christ up to 
death," and his death itself, which took place in time; 
that the decree l<> deliver Christ up to die for sinners 

* Th. 8. t Tli. 3. 



154 TURRETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

waa antecedent to the election of a definite number, 
but his death procured the decree of special elec- 
tion." Amyraut* speaking of Christ's death in time, 
says, "Redemption ought to be equal, that it may respect 
all, as the creatures of God equally sinful,' 1 <fcc. He 
elsewhere says, that " the nature of the tiling proves 
this, for Beeing the affection of the Son must be the 
same with that of the Father lor all men as his chil- 
dren: so the death of Christ in time must be con- 
formed to the eternal decree of the Father, as he 
would not make an atonement, unless according to 
the command of his Father. Therefore, sinec the 
decree of the Father respecting Christ's death pro- 
ceeded from equal fatherly affection towards all, be- 
fore any were elected to faith: Christ, in his death, 
could have no other end and intention than to exe- 
cute his counsel." Even in this view of the subject, 
Christ, in his death, must have considered som<' as 
elect, and others as reprobate; for since there can be 
no election without reprobation, it was impossible for 
Christ to think of some as elected, without, at the 
same time, viewing others as passed by or repro- 
bated. If. then, he willed to die for those whom he 
knew to have been elected, and that with a special 
affection for them as elected ones: he must, according 
to Amyraut, have been willing to die with the same 

* De PrsBdesti. p. 77. 



ITS EXTENT. 155 



affection for those whom he knew to be reprobates, 
and that as reprobates; for Amyraut says, " he died 
to fulfil the decree of the Father, which proceeded 
from an equal lore to all." Hence, this monstrous 
absurdity will follow, that Christ, out of the most ar- 
dent affection for those who he knew would never be 
saved, died with an intention and desire to save 
them; while both he and his Father had decreed that 
tliov should not be saved! It will not avail to free 
our opponents from this absurdity, to say, that he did 
not die for the reprobate formally as reprobate, but 
that he died for those as men, who at another time 
had been passed by. and thus excluded from salva- 
tion. Besides, that it is inconceivable how such ab- 
stractions can belong to a unique and simple decree; 
it would follow that Christ did not die for the elect 
as such. Here we reason by the rule of contraries. 
If Christ did not die fur the reprobate as reprobate, 
we infer the same with respect to the elect. It ap- 
pears inexplicable how Christ, in his death, could 
have reaped to a first and a fourth decree, respecting 
the eleel — thai is, should liave died for them, con- 
sidered formally as elect, and materially as men; 
while as to the reprobate, he dealt abstractly, and 
viewed them only as men, and mil as reprobate. For 

election and reprobation gO hand in hand, and mutu- 
ally imply each other. 

lint certain learned men, being aware thai their hy- 



156 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

pothesis, which makes faith no fruit of Christ's death, 
but a gift of the Father, leads to great absurdities, 
offers indignity to Christ, and is injurious to salva- 
tion, have invented some other curious, intricate dis- 
tinctions to escape these difficulties. Sometimes they 
teach, " that Christ did procure faith and repentance 
for all; conditionally, however." Again they say, "that 
he did not procure them in the way of satisfaction or 
meritoriously; but in the way of final cause, that faith 
might be given to the elect to bring them to Christ." 
But neither of these can be affirmed with truth. The 
former supposition is inadmissible; for how could 
faith be procured for us conditionally, when it is itself 
a condition? Although faith is usually represented as 
a condition, required to interest us in Christ; yet it 
is a No held forth as one of the blessings of the new 
covenant, a blessing which Christ has purchased for 
us. Whence Christ is to be viewed as having pro- 
cured for us not only salvation if we believe, but also 
faith that we may believe. The latter supposition is 
equally without foundation. In the schools of theolo- 
gy, no one ever before heard of a procuring, in the 
way of final cause, and not in the way of meritorious 
cause or satisfaction. The procuring of salvation and 
all tilings connected with it, is founded in the atone- 
ment and merits of the person who procures it. Then. 
if Christ did not procure for us faith in the way of 
meritorious cause, he did not merit faith. It cannot 



ITS EXTEXT. 157 



be said that Christ, in the way of final cause, pro- 
cured faith for a limited number; for, on the hypothesis 
of those who make this distinction, there were none 
elected when God decreed that procurement, which 
Christ was to effect by his death. Again, either faith 
was procured in the way of final cause, for all those 
for whom salvation has been procured, or it was not. 
If the former be said, then, as they maintain that sal- 
vation lias been procured for all, all will be saved. 
If the latter be said, then to what purpose has salva- 
tion been procured by the atonement for those who 
have not had procured for them, in the way of final 
cause, that faith, without which, they can never be 
made partakers of the salvation? Again, faith has 
been procured either for all in the way of final cause, 
or for the elect only. If for all, then all shall obtain 
it, which our opponents do not maintain. If for the 
elect only, then Christ, in and by his death, must have 
done more for the elect than for those who were not 
elected; while yet our opponents declare that, in pass- 
ing the decree that Christ should die, which de- 
cree appointed and defined the objects of his death, 
Cud respected all men equally. Thus, in whatever 
light we examine this hypothesis, contradictions and 
absurdities grow out of it. Faith lias been equally 
procured for all, bul all will not be made partakers 
of it; or ii' ii has aol been procured for all, how vain 

and delusive ie thai procuring of Balvation, which is 

7 



158 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

made only on the condition of faith, which he, who 
procured the salvation, knew it was morally impossi- 
ble for the sinner to exercise, without special grace; 
and yet God, who alone can, has refused to give it ! 
Hence, then, we arrive at this conclusion: either faith 
is completely in the power of the natural man, as 
Pelagius held, or it must have been procured by Christ 
in the atonement, and in consequence thereof given us 
by the Father. 

To free themselves from all these difficulties, our 
adversaries sometimes attempt to illustrate their view 
of the subject, by a comparison instituted between 
Christ, and a prince who pays the price of redemption 
for all his subjects, who are taken captive by the 
enemy; though lie does not effect by it the liberation 
of all; because some of them arc unwilling to be 
set free. This comparison fails in one all-important 
circumstance. The prince is not able to give to those 
captives, who choose to remain in bondage, the will 
to avail themselves of the price of redemption, which 
has been paid. But Christ is able Were there a 
prince, who could not only pay the ransom for his cap- 
tive subjects, but could also give thorn the will to avail 
themselves of it; nay, further, suppose that the prince 
knew that they had not and could not have this will 
unless he bestowed it upon them, which he yet would 
not do; could any one say, that he really wished them to 
be liberated, and had paid the ransom with a serious 



ITS EXTENT. 159 



intention to emancipate them? Again, if this coin- 
parison bo urged, its force may be easily retorted. 
The corporeal liberation of a captive cannot be effect- 
ed by the mere payment of a ransom; the chains and 
fetters which bind him in the prison must be broken 
asunder, otherwise the payment of the ransom will be 
ineffectual. In the same manner, in order to emanci- 
pate the soul from the spiritual bondage of sin, it is 
not enough that a ransom is paid to justice; the chains 
of sin and unbelief, which bind the prisoner so that he 
is both unable and unwilling to enjoy his liberty, must 
be burst asunder by the hand of the Almighty. 

IX. Again, if Christ died for all, then he made expia- 
tion for all their sins. He therefore must have made 
atonement for the sins of unbelief and final impeni- 
tence, which preventman from applying to himself the 
redemption provided for him; and thus they will no 
longer stand in the way of such an application; for on 
the supposition of satisfaction having been made for 
them, they must be pardoned. To this it cannot ra- 
tionally be objected, that the blessingwill lie applied, 
if the condition on which redemption has been pro- 
cured be complied with. H implies a contradiction to 
talk of the condition's being complied with, when the 
onbelief and impenitence are supposed to be final. It 
is as absurd to pretend that Chrisl died to atone for 
man's unbelief, provided he would not be unbelieving, 



160 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



but believe; as to say I have found out an infallible 
remedy for the healing of a blind or leprous man which 
shall be applied on this condition, that he will not be 
blind nor leprous. Further, a failure in fulfilling the 
condition cannot prevent the application of redemp- 
tion to unbelievers: for it is supposed that Christ by 
his death has made satisfaction for unbelief, and thus 
has atoned for this very failure. But, since every one 
must see that this cannot be affirmed of those who will 
not be saved, or of the reprobate; the conclusion is 
irresistible, that Christ did not die for them. 

X. The last argument on tins subject is, the absurdi- 
ties that flow from the doctrine of universal atonement. 
If Christ died lor all men universally, it will follow:— 
1. That he died, on condition they would believe, for 
multitudes innumerable, to whom his death has never 
been made known: and hence it was impossible that 
they could believe. '1. That lie died for those whom 
he knew to be children of perdition, whom God had 
passed by, and who would never, to all eternity, enjoy 
any of the fruits of his death: and so exercised ineffa, 
ble love towards those whom both he and the Father 
will cause to suffer eternally under the effects of their 
wrath. 3. That he died for those, who previously to 
his death were actually condemned without all hope 
of reprieve, and were in hell suffering his avenging 
wrath, and that as their surety he suffered punishment 



ITS EXTEXT. 161 



in the place of those who were suffering punishment 
for themselves, and must suffer it without end. 4. That 
Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer of those who 
not only never will he, but never can be saved or 
redeemed. Or otherwise he must be an imperfect Sa- 
viour, having obtained a salvation which he never ap- 
plies; for he indeed cannot be properly called a 
Saviour of any but those whom he makes to be parta- 
kers of salvation, and who are actually saved. 

I proceed to answer objections. Christ is nowhere 
in Scripture said to have died for all, unless some lim- 
itation is added; from which it may be inferred that 
these .Scriptures do not teach that he suffered for all 
men of all nations, but that the object of his death is 
restricted according to circumstances. Sometimes it 
is limited to the multitude of the elect, which has a 
universality peculiar to itself. When it is said (2 Cor. 
v. 15) " that Christ died for all," it is not to be under- 
stood of all those <: who are dead" in sin; for the object 
of the Apostle, in this chapter, is not to demonstrate 
the genera] depravity of men, but to show how great 
the obligations are which bind believers to the per- 
formance of duty, both on account of their justification 
through the imputation of the merits of Christ's death, 
which delivers them as fully as if they had made satis- 
faction in their own persons; and on account of their 
Banctification through the crucifixion of the old man 



162 TUREETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

with liis affections and lusts, by the efficacy of the 
cross of Christ. Those are understood, who live 
not unto themselves, but unto Christ; for whom Christ 
not only died, but also rose again; and whom the love of 
Christ const raineth. These phrases limit the all of the 
Apostle. As if the Apostle had said, Christ died for 
all who are described by these characteristics. They 
agree to none but the elect, to whom alone it belongs 
to die in Christ, and with him, as the Apostle else- 
where declares.- When the Apostle, in the 19th verse 
of this chapter, says. " that God was in Christ recon- 
ciling the world to himself, not imputing their tres- 
passes to them/' he must be understood as treating of 
the world of those actually reconciled, " to whom he 
does not impute their sins." It is plain that this 
agrees to none but to the elect. To all others he does 
impute the sins which they commit. The Psalmist 
says.t they are blessed to whom the Lord does not 
impute sin. Surely this cannot be affirmed of those 
who will never be saved. In the sense in which the 
Psalmist speaks, and in which the Apostle speaks in 
Rom. vi., we arc to understand the words of the 
Apostle, Rom. v. 18. 10: ''By the righteousness of 
one the free gift came upon all men to justification 
of life: for as by one man's disobedience many were 
made sinners : so by the obedience of one shall many 

* Rom. vi. 6. 8. t P*al. xncL L 



ITS EXTENT. 163 



be made righteous." The all men who receive "justi- 
fication of life," are those, " who receive abundance of 
grace and of the gift of righteousness;" and they can 
be none other than those who are actually justified. 
Who are they that actually obtain justification? They 
are believers, and believers alone; the elect, and the 
elect alone, who belong to the body of Christ, which 
is composed of all its members, and who are the all of 
which the apostle speaks. As Adam is opposed to 
Christ, Head to Head; as sin and death have passed 
upon all who descend from Adam; in like manner, all 
who pertain to Christ the second Adam obtain justi- 
fication and life. The apostle elsewhere expresses 
thia Ify the phrases dying, and being made alive.* 
" As in Adam all die;" that is, as all who die, die in 
Adam, and on account of his sin; "so in Christ shall 
all be made alive;" that is, all who will be "made alive" 
in grace and glory, will be made alive in Christ and 
on his account. All those for whom Christ is saidf 
to have "tasted death; 7 are sons, who are either 
brought or to be brought to glory, the captain of 
whose salvation is Christ, whom Christ calls brethren, 
and whom God has given him. Will any one say that 
all these things can be affirmed of the reprobate? 
When tip' objector is prepared to say so, then, and not 
till then, Lei him quote this text, in proof of universal 
atonement. 

* 1 Cor. xv. 22. t Il-k ii. 9. Rom. x. 11. 



164 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



Sometimes the sacred writers use the word all to 
exclude all distinctions of nation, age. sex, condition, 
character, and other particulars, by which men are 
distinguished from one another; and not with a view 
to comprehend every individual. Thus Paul says, 
" For the Scripture saith, whosoever believeth on him 
shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference be- 
tween the Jew and Greek: for the same Lord over 
all is rich unto all that call upon him."* To the same 
effect he speaks elsewhere. " In him there is neither 
Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision, bar- 
barian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and 
in all."'!- As if the apostle should say. no difference of 
nation or condition, either promotes or hinder? salva- 
tion; but Christ is all. i. e., bestows all things necessary 
for salvation upon all who believe, without any regard 
to nation or condition. This ia explained by John in 
the Apocalypse: "And they sung a new song, saying, 
Thou art worthy to take the book, and open the seals 
thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed U8 to 
God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, 
and people, and nation.":}: That is, from all the tribes 
of Israel, and from men of all nations, whether civilized 
or barbarous, hast thou redeemed us. 

The passage so often in the mouths of our oppo- 
nents^ " Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be 

* Heb. ii. 9. Rom. x. 11. 

t Col. iii. 11. X Rev. v. 9. § 1 Tim. ii. 6. 



ITS EXTENT. 165 



testified in due time," teaches the doctrine which is 
illustrated in the foregoing section, and none other: 

1. The all here spoken of, are those in whose place 
Christ substituted himself to bear their punishment 
and to pay the price of their redemption. This is the 
import of the word avTiXvtpov, as all the orthodox 
have maintained against Socinus and his disciples. 
This he cannot be said to have done for all; for then 
none could be condemned to suffer for his own sins. 

2. Paul speaks of all those for whom Christ is Mediator 
by intercession as well as by satisfaction, for we have 
shown above that these two functions of his priestly 
office are inseparable. But the Arminians themselves 
admit that Christ does not intercede for all men. 

3. The objects of the apostle's discourse are such as 
God " wills to be saved and to come to the knowledge 
of the truth. 7 ' Experience teaches us that he does not 
bo will with respect to all men universally. This we 
have proved at large under a former head, where the 
subject of God's desire to save all men is minutely 
examined. [We there remarked, that if God desires 
to save men vrho are not Baved, his power must be Hin- 
di dare Bay so? Besides, can we con- 
ceive that a being desires to accomplish an object and 
Is unable to effeel it. withoul also conceiving thai being 
to be in some measure unhappy? At Leasl we must 

BUppose lie would have been more li:i] »py had lie gained 

hi- object; and who will dan.' to attribute imperfec- 



166 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

tion of happiness to God? Doubtless he who asserts 
that God earnestly desires the salvation of those whom 
he cannot save, must assert, that he is deficient both 
in power and happiness. Further, if there are men 
whom God desires to save and cannot, his not being 
able to effect their salvation must proceed from one of 
two causes: either the impossibility of making an 
atonement for their sins; or the obstinacy of their 
depravity is so great that he cannot vanquish it. The 
former of these cannot lie said by our adversaries, for 
they assert that Christ made atonement for the sins of 
all men without any exception. The latter ground is 
untenable. From the great transgressors who have 
been made illustrious trophies of divine grace, we may 
and do safely conclude that the greatest and most 
obdurate sinners are equally, with the least guilty, in 
the power of grace. If sin be in some instances so 
potent as to be beyond the power of God to arrest and 
destroy it; who can say but that sin may so fortify 
itself in the dominions of God as to brave the utmost 
power of Jehovah's arm, and extend its ravages even 
to the throne of God? Hence the word all, used by 
the apostle in his letter to Timothy, must be under- 
stood in a restricted sense. That it is in some measure 
restricted must be admitted; for otherwise it would 
embrace fallen angels. How do we know that it does 
not extend to them? The Scripture assures us that 
he took not on him the nature of angels, and that there 



ITS EXTENT. 167 



is no redemption for them. In the same way we learn 
from other portions of Scripture, which we have before 
adduced, that Christ did not die for all the posterity 
of Adam; without any exception.] The apostle is 
here to be understood as speaking of individuals of all 
nations, and not of all the individuals of every nation. 
Beza translates rovg -avrag, by a Latin word which 
signifies all kinds, some of all nations, states, and con- 
ditions. That this is the true sense of the phrase 
Calvin has proved by very solid reasoning. " The 
apostle simply means that no nation or order of men 
is excluded from the salvation, which God offers to all 
without exception who hear the Gospel." " The univer- 
sality here mentioned must be referred to kinds of 
men, and not to persons: as if he had said, not to Jews 
only, but Gentiles also; not peasants only, but princes 
too, are redeemed by Christ." 

The world, for which Christ is said by the Evan- 
gelist John* to have died, and to which he was sent, 
cannot be extended without limitation to the whole 
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 :t ii family; for innumerable multitudes of the 
world which it composes, perish; but it denotes, ei- 
ther the universality of the elect, or some of all peo- 
ple indiscriminately, Jews and Gentiles. The evan- 
gelist alludes to the promise made to Abraham, that 
'•in his seed [i. e., Christ] all families of the earth 

• John iii. L6. 17. and iv. VI, ami vi. Z'-). 



168 TURRETTTX OX THE ATOXEMEXT. 



should be blessed."* In this promise given to the 
ancient patriarch, there are blessings held oat to all 
nations, who have Abraham for their father.f But 
this blessing belongs, not to all men universally, who 
are in the world, but to all the promised seed, with- 
out distinction of nation; as appears both from this, 
that all are not justified and saved by faith, which is 
the condition of the promise, as its blessing is ex- 
plained by Paul ::|: and that the same apostle limits it 
to those who are the seed of Abraham through faith. ,§ 
Again, the apostle quotes this passage from Genesis, 
"In Isaac shall thy seed be called,! and thus limits 
the promise to a definite number. Hence the world 
for whom Christ gave his flesh to death,1 is none 
other than the world to which he is said (verse 33) to 
give life. "The bread of Cod is he which cometh 
down from heaven, and giveth life to the world, 11 
which cannot extend to the whole human family. 
For the giving of life imports its application and 
communication; which belong to the elect only. It is 
in this sense that Christ says he gives life to his 
sheep.** It is absurd to say that life is given to one 
when it is only obtained for him or offered to him, 
but never actually imparted. When Christ is said to 
be the " Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of 

* Gen. xii. 3. and xxvi. 4. and xxii. 18. 

t Rom. iv. 1G. % Gal. ilL 8, 16. § Rom. iv. 16. 

II Rom. ix. 7. 1! John vi. 5. ** John x. 28. 



ITS EXTEXT. 169 



the world,"* the elect world is meant. The word 
dlpeo), which is here translated " taketh away," signi- 
fies to remove entirely. How can Christ be said to 
remove entirely the sins of the reprobate, which re- 
main against them for condemnation? No other 
world can be meant in these passages but the world 
of the elect, made up out of Jews and Gentiles, with- 
out regard to nation or condition; the world of those 
whose sins Christ is said to have borne in his own body 
on the tree, that they, being dead to sin, might live unto, 
righteousness,? and who are said to be blessed, on 
account of the taking away of their sins.J 

When it is said that " Christ is a propitiation for 
our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the 
whole world," it is not meant to extend the propitia- 
tion to all collectively and severally, but to those only 
who can comfort themselves by the intercession of 
Christ, and the pardon which they have obtained 
through him. They are the elect only. Christ is a 
propitiation for those alone, whose cause he pleads as 
intercessor with the Father; for these arc joined to- 
gether by the apostle as equal and inseparable. Our 
Learned opponents confess, in their explanation of 
John xvii. '.), that Christ is not an advocate for all. 
Besides, the Father must be actually propitiated and 
reconciled to all those for whom Christ made propi- 



f I Pet. ii. 24 t Psal. x.vxii. I. 



170 TURRETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

tiation, unless we maintain that Christ missed his aim 
and shed his blood in vain, contrary to the apostle's 
assertion that no one for whom Christ died can be 
condemned * which plainly cannot be said of those 
who are shut out from the covenant and have the 
wrath of God abiding upon them. Finally, the scope 
of the apostle, which is, to comfort believers against 
the remains of sin, proves that he does not intend 
every one of the posterity of Adam. For what com- 
fort can a believer take from that grace which is com- 
mon to the elect and the reprobate? What comfort 
if he knows that Christ in his death has done nothing 
more for him than for unbelievers? Therefore, the 
phrase of John has respect not to all men of all 
nations, but to the believing inhabitants of the whole 
world; or, as Calvin says, " the sons of God dis- 
persed through the whole world." Lest any one 
should think that the blessing of Christ's atonement 
was confined to the apostles alone, or to those be- 
lievers to whom this Epistle was directed; John says 
that it was much more extensive, embracing men of 
all nations, and belonging to believers redeemed out 
of every tribe, tongue, kindred, and people of the 
whole world. It is of little moment whether by 
the phrase our sins, are understood those of the apos- 
tles, or those of believing Jews of the dispersion, then 

* Rom. viii. 34. 



ITS EXTEXT. 



171 



living, (to "whom, without doubt, this Epistle was di- 
rected, as well as the Epistles of Peter and James, all 
which are called catholic, because not inscribed to 
any particular city or person,) as distinguished from 
those who either had believed before Christ appeared 
in the flesh, or who would afterwards believe to 
the end of the world. The question still comes to 
the same point. It is sufficient that the world here 
mentioned cannot embrace universally all men; as 
John and those to whom he writes were distinguished 
from it; while yet they are included in that universal- 
ity, which embraces the whole of the human race. 
This was the opinion of Calvin. "Not for our sins 
only is added by way of amplification, that believers 
might be firmly persuaded that the propitiation ex- 
tended to all who would embrace Christ by faith;" 
and again, " The object of John was none other than 
to make known that the blessing of which he dis- 
courses is common to the whole Church; therefore, 
under all he does not comprehend the reprobate, but 
designates them who would afterwards believe from 
among those who were scattered over every clime. 
Then truly with the greatest propriety the grace of 
Christ is Illustrated, when he is preached as the only 
Balvation of the world." 
Though Christ came "to save that which was lost"* 



Matt, xviii. 11. 



172 TUREETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



and saves none others, yet it is not necessary that he 
should save all those who are lost sinners. So far 
from this, Christ himself clearly testifies, that he came 
to call not those lost sinners who are both utterly ig- 
norant of their lost state and swollen with an exalted 
opinion of their own righteousness, hut those only 
who labour and are heavy laden with the harden of 
their sin* Whence he says, he came to save that 
which was lost, in order to mark the character and 
condition of those who will be saved, but not all that 
which was lost. He designates the quality, not the 
number, of those whom he would save. 

It is one thing to perish in reality and finally, an- 
other to receive from a brother au occasion by which 
lie might, and, if left to himself, would perish. When 
the Apostle Paul speakst concerning the perishing of 
a brother for whom Chrisl died, he docs not intend 
actual perdition, a- if one for whom Christ died 
might perish in reality, for none can snatch Christ's 
sheep out of his hand;| nor can any one of those 
perish whom the Father has given him to he re- 
deemed^ because they -are kept by the power of 
God through faith." Especially since it is a brother 
who is here spoken of: he may he weak in faith, yet 
God is able to make him stand.*: The apostle in- 

* Matt. xi. 28. t Rom. xiv. 15, and 1 Cor. viii. 10. 11. 

X John x. 2a §JoLnxvii.l2. ||lPet.L5. 

r Rom. xiv. 1. 4. 



ITS EXTENT. 173 



tends to develop the mischievous consequences of an 
improper and preposterous use of liberty in things 
which are in themselves indifferent, and show how it 
wounds and offends the conscience of a weak brother, 
and thi^s exposes him, as far as we can expose him, to 
the danger of perishing. The Scriptures often use 
words which naturally signify effects and actions, 
when nothing more is intended than to point out 
those occasions or motives which may lead to the 
effects and actions mentioned. Thus he is said to be 
guilty, as far as in his power, of adultery, who only 
looks upon the wife of another man to lust after her.* 
He is said to " make God a liar, who believes not the 
record which God has given of his Son."f That is, 
he does it, so far as in him lies. No one will say 
that he does so in reality. In this way a weak 
brother is said to perish by our knowledge, when we 
do nothing to preserve him; as it is expressed Rom. 
xiv. 15: "Destroy him not by thy meat." 

When heretical, apostate teachers are said "to deny 
the Lord that bought thcm,"| we are not to under- 
stand tlw buying to mean a literal atonement redeem- 
ing the Binner from the wrath and curse of God, and 
from eternal death. No one is so redeemed, but 
those wlio were given by lln- Father t<» Chrisl to i><' 
redeemed, and who consequently will be kept by 

* Matt. t 1 John »• 10. - Pet. ii. I. 



174 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



Christ and saved with an everlasting salvation, as 
the members of his body and his peculiar treasure. 
It is deliverance from error and idolatry of which 
Peter here speaks; a deliverance effected by an out- 
ward exhibition of the Gospel, and a setting^apart to 
the ministry, for which these false teachers were in a 
certain respect bought by Christ as Lord of the 
Church. Christ had acquired a peculiar title to 
them, as his own, by calling them into his Church, 
the house which he owns, as masters formerly bought 
servants for the discharge of domestic duties. That 
this is the intention of Peter is collected from the fol- 
lowing considerations:—!. He uses the word cWott/c, 
which signifies a master or an owner rather than a 
Saviour, to whom redemption properly so called be- 
longs. 2. The word ayopdfriv which the apostle here 
employs is generally used to express that kind of buy- 
ing which is practised in markets, and often denotes 
simple deliverance. 3. The kind of buying here con- 
templated, is that through which those bought are 
said - to have escaped the corruptions that are in the 
world, through the knowledge of God our Saviour,'' 
by which " they have known the way of righteous- 
ness." All these belong to deliverance from pagan 
errors and idolatries, and to a calling to the knowl- 
edge of the truth, from which, through apostacy and 
the introduction of most pernicious heresies, they make 
defection. Hence they are said to deny their Master 



ITS EXTENT. 175 



who bought them and called them to the work of the 
ministry. [4. The denying of the Lord here mention- 
ed, is a sin which is spoken of as peculiarly aggrava- 
ted; and that which constitutes the peculiar aggrava- 
tion is, that they deny their Master who bought them. 
But if Peter intends by the purchase here mentioned, 
that atonement which Christ in his death made for sin, 
then there was nothing in the conduct of these teachers 
peculiarly wicked; the same thing might be affirmed 
of every man, upon the hypothesis of our opponents; 
for they maintain that he bought every man. On the 
supposition, however, that the buying here intended is 
the calling of these false teachers out of the darkness 
of heathen superstitions, to a knowledge of the glori- 
ous Gospel of God, and making them teachers of that 
Gospel; then their denial of a Master who had done 
such great tilings for them, was a crime aggravated 
by the foulest ingratitude. — Trans.] 

Sanctification by the blood of the covenant may be 
understood in a twofold sense. One internal, spir- 
itual and real, which belongs to those who are actually 
redeemed and regenerated by tin; blood of Christ; 
another external and apparent only, which consists in 
a profession of the truth. The former necessarily 
presupposes thai Ohrisl died for those who are thus 
sanctified. The latter kind of Banctification docs not 
presuppose this ;it nil. Many hypocrites obtain that 
cxtcriuil Banctification, by an external calling to mem- 



176 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



bership in the Church, and the enjoyment of its privi- 
leges, especially baptism and the Lord's Supper; to 
whom, notwithstanding. Christ with his saving bene- 
fits does not belong; because they are destitute of jus- 
tifying faith. When Paul speaks of those who pro- 
fane the blood of the covenant wherewith they had 
been sanctified * we cannot suppose (upon the hypothe- 
sis of the Reformed churches) that he intends the in- 
ternal and real sanctification of which we have spoken. 
We must understand him to mean external sanctifica- 
tii »n. such as belongs to those who profess their adhe- 
rence to the Church and enjoy its ordinances, especially 
baptism, in which they are sanctified or set apart from 
the world by the sprinkling, of water which represents 
the blood of the covenant, and who renounce it by 
denying Christ ami apostatizing from his Gospel. In 
this manner, those who eat and drink unworthily, at 
the sacrament of the Supper, are said to be guilty of 
the body and blood of Christ.t Besides, the apostle 
Bpeaks hypothetic-ally, not absolutely. Be points 
out the connection between an antecedent and conse- 
quent. He shows what they who thus tra 
to expect. He asserts nothing more respecting those 
who are really redeemed and true believers, than what 
is elsewhere asserted respecting himself and angels 
from heaven4 " Though we or an angel from 

* Heb. x. 29. t 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29. t Gal. i. 8. 



ITS EXTENT. 177 



heaven preach any other doctrine, let him be accursed." 
But no one will infer from this, that the apostle or an 
angel from heaven will be accursed. 

What every one is bound to believe absolutely and 
simply, directly and immediately, without anything 
previously supposed, we grant is true. But the case 
is different in relation to those things which one is 
bound to believe mediately, and in consequence of 
some acts supposed to be previously done. It is false, 
however, that all men are bound to believe that Christ 
died for them simply and absolutely. In the first 
place, those to whom the Gospel has never been preach- 
ed, to whom Christ has never been made known, are 
not surely bound to believe that Christ died for them. 
This can be affirmed of those only who are called in 
the Gospel. " How can they believe in him of whom 
they have not heard, and how can they hear without a 
preacher?"* Secondly, even all those who hear the 
Gospel arc not bound to believe directly and immedi- 
ately, thai Christ died for them, but mediately. The 
acts of faith and repentance are presupposed; they 
rnusl precede a belief that Christ died for one's self; 
for Christ's death belongs to those only who believe 
and repent. So far is i1 from being true that unbe- 
lievers are bound to believe thai Christ died for 
them, that he who persuades them so to believe mis- 

* Rom. .\. 1 1. 



178 



TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



erably mocks them; since the wrath of God abides on 
them, and they are bound to believe themselves con- 
demned already.* Nor, if they are bound to believe 
that Christ has died for them, provided they repent 
and fly to him, docs it follow that this is simply and ab- 
solutely true whether they believe or not. Hence those 
who are bound to believe that Christ died for them, 
arc not simply and absolutely all men; it is all those 
only who are weary and heavy laden with their sins;t 
who thirst and sensibly feel their need of drink^ or 
who are penitent and feel their misery. 

It will not avail here to object, that " faith in Christ 
is demanded of all who hear the Gospel, and that not 
an undefined faith, but a faith true and justifying, 
which it cannot be unless il terminates on Christ as dy- 
ing; for them." For, although faith in Christ is so de- 
manded, and that a true and justifying faith, yet wc 
may not infer that it is required that all its acts are 
immediately and at the same time to be exercised; 
and especially its ultimate and special act, that of be- 
lieving in Christ as having died for me. For, al- 
though this is included in the acts of justifying faith, 
vet it is not its first act which is immediately and in 
the first instance demanded of the person called in 
the Gospel: it is its last, and presupposes others pre- 
ceding it. That this remark may be well understood, 



John iii. 3G. 



f Matt. xi. 28. 



t Isa. lxi. 1. 



ITS EXTENT. 179 



I shall proceed to distinguish various acts of faith. 
First, one act of faith is direct, which has for its object 
the offer of the Gospel. By this act I fly to Christ 
and embrace his promises. Another act is reflex, and 
has for its object the direct act of faith. By this act I 
discover that I have indeed believed, and that the prom- 
ises of the Gospel belong to me. Again, the direct act 
of faith is twofold. One of its operations consists 
in the assent which it gives to the word of God and 
the promises of the Gospel, as true in relation to the 
giving of salvation to all who repent and by a living 
faith fly to Christ and embrace him. Another opera- 
tion of saving faith is its taking refuge and trusting in 
Christ, acknowledging him as the only sufficient 
Saviour. It is by this we fly to him, rest in him, and 
from him obtain pardon of our sins and salvation. 
Now, that faith which is commanded in the Gospel is 
commanded as to the first and second acts which arc 
direct, before it is commanded as to the third act which 
is in'' reflex, ana which necessarily supposes the two 
former; as it cannot exist unless preceded by them. 
Hence we are enabled clearly to detect the fallacy of 
the above objection. When the objection speaks of 
the faith commanded, it refers to that act by which the 
sinner lays hold of Christ; bnt when it speaks of the 
tiling believed, then it refers to the last, by which we 
believe from the evidence furnished by t he direct act 
iii our souls, thai Christ died for us. Christ is not 



180 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



revealed in the Gospel as having died for me in partic- 
ular; but only as having died in general for those who 
believe and repent. Hence I reason from that faith 
and repentance which I find actually to exist in my 
heart, that Christ has, indeed, died for me in particu- 
lar. I know that he died for all who fly to him: 1 
find that I have fled to him; hence I can and should 
infer that he died for me. That the faith commanded 
in the Gospel is not a direct and immediate belief that 
Christ died for me, appears from this consideration: 
thai when ii is enjoined either by Christ or his apos- 
tles, no mention is made of its being applied to this or 
that mam in particular. It is set forth only in a gen- 
eral relation to duty, or to blessings promised to those 
who believe: as in Matt. xvi. 16. Peter, in his cele- 
brated declaration of faith, professes no more than 
this: that he believes Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of 
the living God. John vi. 69: " We believe and are 
sure, that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living 
God.'' Paul demands no more of those who believe 
unto salvation, than ;i to confess with the mouth the 
Lord Jesus, and to believe with the heart that God 
rain,! him from the dead. - - Thus, when the saints are 
commanded to believe in the Son of God, they are 
bound indeed to believe that Christ is the true Mes- 
siah, and to fly to him as the only author of salvation, 



Rom. x. 9. 



ITS EXTENT. 181 



to those who, through faith and repentance, betake 
themselves to him; and these acts must take place 
before they are bound to believe that Christ died for 
them. 

Hence it appears, that the command to believe in 
Christ, embraces many things before we come to the 
last consolatory act, by which we believe that he died 
for us. First, we are to believe what the Scripture 
reveals to us, relative to our miserable condition by 
nature and our utter inability to effect our own salva- 
tion. Whence arises a salutary despair of our own ex- 
ertions, and a knowledge of the necessity of a remedy. 
Secondly, those who thus despair of themselves, are 
commanded to believe that Christ, the Son of God, is 
the alone all-sufficient Saviour, given by God to men — 
that in him alone, they can obtain perfect salvation 
and remission of sin, who sincerely fly to him and 
repent with genuine repentance. Thirdly, those who 
are thus contrite and penitent and despairing in them- 
selves, are commanded to fly to Christ as the rock of 
sul ration; to embrace his merit as all-sufficient; to 
fall upon and sweetly rest upon it; and through it 
alone to expect remission of sin, righteousness and sal- 
vation. Fourthly and finally, those who perceive that 
they do repent, fly to Christ, and repose in him all 
their hopes of salvation, are bound to believe that 
Christ died for them, and that on account of his death 

their sins are pardoned. Prom all which, it is abun- 
8 



182 



TURBETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 



dantly plain, that faith iu Christ presupposes an 
afflicting sense of misery and a desire of deliverance; 
and that the command to believe does not respect all 
indiscriminately, but only all who feel their misery 
and desire deliverance from it, who hunger and thirst, 
who labour and are heavy laden, who are broken in 
spirit and contrite in heart.* Further, it appears 
that this Gospel command does not immediately and in 
the first instance, demand of us that act of faith, by 
which we believe that Christ died for us, but that by 
which we fly to Christ, embrace him, and rest on him, 
which is nothing else than the one by which the peni- 
tent sinner, dejected under a sense of his misery and 
awakened by the call of the Gospel, renouncing every 
other hope, flies to Christ as the rock of salvation, 
and with his whole heart desires and seeks the grace 
offered in the Gospel. To express it in a word, flic 
faith which the Gospel demands of these who hear it 
is, the flying of the sinner for r<fuge to God as the fount- 
ain of grace, and to Christ as the ark of safety vchieh is 
opened in the Gospel. If I am conscious to myself that 
I have done this, which is the formal act of faith, then 
I can and ought to exercise the other act by which I 
believe, that for me. who repent and fly to him, Christ 
hath died. This is sometimes called the consequent act 
of faith, because it follows the direct act of faith, by 



Matt xi. 28. and Tsai. lxi. 1. 



ITS EXTENT. 183 



which I believe in Christ and fly to him as the only 
and perfect Saviour. It is also called the consolatory 
act, because it pours into the soul of the believer 
unspeakable joy and consolation. Since, therefore, no 
one can have this special reflex act of faith, unless the 
other acts together with repentance are presupposed 
as going before it; we infer, that all are not bound to 
believe that Christ died for them, but only believers 
and penitents, or all who, through the knowledge of sin 
and a sense of the divine wrath, arc contrite in heart, 
and fly to him, and from him seek pardon of sin, and 
rely on his merits alone for salvation. 

In vain will any one reply, (1.) " That the command 
to believe in Christ culls for a faith embracing all its 
acts, and among them the last, by which we believe 
that Christ died for us, and that this is required of all 
who hear the command to believe." The nature and 
dependence of these ads upon one another is such, 
that the last cannot exist without both the former; the 
third cannot exist without the second, nor the second 
without the first. When, therefore, the command to 
believe is announced, the first acl is demanded of the 
Binner; nol thai he may !. ait ther^, but that, having 
performed it. he may go on totheseeond. Bui incase 
he has nol performed the first, he i ; by no means re- 
quired tn go on to the second. He cannot, nay he 
oughl nol t<> believe, that Christ is his Redeemer, who 
do.s nol believe that Chris! is the Son of God and the 



184 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 

Redeemer of men; nor should a man believe that Christ 
redeems him, while yet he does not believe that Christ 
is a Redeemer at all. But, when a man finds in him- 
self the preceding acts, which are the foundation of 
the last, then, and not till then, let him go on to exer- 
cise that last one also. 

Equally vain is the objection, (2.) " That as many 
as are commanded to believe in Christ, are com- 
manded to have justifying faith, as no other can be 
saving; but justifying faith necessarily imports that 
we believe not only that Christ died in common for 
men, but for us in particular; that other Avise, this 
faith would not differ from the mere historical faith 
of reprobates: nay, it would not differ from the faith 
of devils, who can believe the same thing." To this 
1 reply, that the justifying faith which is commanded in 
the Gospd. docs indeed embrace the various acts of 
which we have spoken, but every one in its own 
order. First, the direct and formal act, which con- 
sists in the last judgment of the intellect, (or that by 
which the will is immediately impelled to volition,) 
concerning Christ, that he is the sole and perfect 
Redeemer of all those who believe, repent, and seri- 
ously fly to him. This is called justifying faith. In it 
the light let into the understanding powerfully impels 
the will, and the whole soul flics for refuge to Christ 
and finds rest. Secondly, the reflex and consolatory 
act, which follows of itself, when the first is per- 



ITS EXTEXT. 185 



formed. From the time that I feel myself powerfully 
persuaded by the Gospel call and promises, seriously 
to fly to Christ, and expect life and righteousness 
from him alone, from that moment I can and should 
infer, that Christ has died for me; because, from the 
Gospel I learn, that he has died for all who -believe 
and repent. Hence the answer is easy to the argu- 
ment: Whosoever is bound to have justifying faith, is 
bound to believe that Christ died for him. I deny 
that this is true of the first act of faith. Of the sec- 
ond reflex act, I admit it to be true. Presuppose the 
first, then we are bound to believe that Christ died 
for us; exclude it, then I deny that any man is so 
bound. Nor is, therefore, the faith of believers like 
that of reprobates and devils. For, although repro- 
bates may believe theoretically that Christ is the Son 
of God and Saviour of men, yet they are never so 
truly persuaded by a fiducial assent to the word of 
God, that they fly to him and rest upon him for salva- 
tion. If they were truly persuaded that Christ is the 
only and perfect Saviour of all who believe and 
repent, and that out of him there is no salvation, it 
would be impossible for them not to fly to him and 
embrace him for salvation with their whole heart. 
This necessity arises from the will's always obeying 
the last dictate of the understanding, and from all 
creatures seeking their own happiness. Hence also 
it appears, that the faith of devils has nothing in 



186 TUBUETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



common with that of the elect. For the devils know 
that Christ is .offered to men alone, and that they 
have no interest in him; and it is impossible for them 
to place any fiducial reliance upon him. 

Again, it is objected, (3.) "That no one can place 
his trust and reliance upon Christ, unless lie knows 
that Christ lias died for him and is his Saviour. For 
man always is anxious about his salvation, until he 
knows the intention of God and the will of Christ, 
and that by the purpose of God the death of Christ 
was destined for him." To this I reply, that there 
are two acts or parts in the fiducial reliance of the 
Christian. The one consists in his receiving and 
taking refuge in Christ; the other, in the rest and 
consolation which arise from a sense of having fled to 
and received Christ. The former is the act of faith, 
by which we fly to Christ as the only Saviour, cleave 
to him, and appropriate him to ourselves for salva- 
tion. The latter is the act by which, flying to Christ 
and resting on him, we trust that we have, and to 
eternity will have, communion with him in his death 
and its benefits; and joyfully repose in the firm per- 
suasion that he died for us, and by his death recon- 
ciled us to God. Some divines call the former faith 
on Christ, and the latter faith respecting Christ. This 
respects Christ as having died for us; not so the 
former; for no one can know that Christ has died for 
him, unless he has first believed on him. As Christ 



ITS EXTENT. 187 



is promised to those only who believe and repent, I 
must first fly to him and embrace his merits with gen- 
uine repentance, before I can on good grounds decide 
that the death of Christ belongs to me by the decree of 
God and the intention of Christ. My faith, however, 
«Iocs not cause that Christ died for me; for his death 
was antecedent to any regard had to faith as its meri- 
torious cause, and the grace of faith is a fruit and 
effect of the death of Christ. But it is an evidence 
in all those who possess it, that Christ died for them. 
We infer the existence of the cause from the effect. 
And though I cannot yet assure myself that Christ 
has died for me, it does not follow that I must always 
remain in a state of doubt and anxiety, and that my 
faith must be weak and unstable. My faith may 
firmly rest upon the general promises of the Gospel 
to every believing and penitent sinner. Hence by 
certain consequence, when I find that I possess faith 
and repentance, I may assure myself that these prom- 
ises belong to me. 

Another objection is, (4.) " That, by our hypothesis, 
the foundation of the sinner's consolation is taken 
away, as we reason from a particular to a universal; 
thus. Christ died for some; therefore, he died for me. 
But by the rules of good reasoning, we should proceed 
from a universal to a particular; Christ died for each 
ami every man; therefore, he died for me." But it is 
gratuitous to say that we reason in this way, which 



188 TURRETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 

every one sees to be absurd. On the contrary, we 
reason from a universal to a particular, but in a cer- 
tain order. Christ died for all who believe and repent ; 
but I believe and repent; therefore, he died for me. 
Besides, it is false that any ground of consolation 
can be drawn from the absolute universality of Christ's 
death; for that which is common to the godly and 
ungodly, to those who shall bo saved and the multi- 
tudes who have been or shall be damned, can surely 
afford no solid comfort to any one. If it be supposed 
that Christ died for Judas and Pharaoh, who have 
perished notwithstanding, how can this free me from 
the fear of damnation? If you reply, that this fear 
may be taken away by faith, you admit that the atone- 
ment is not for all men, but for all believers. Your 
argument is: Christ died for all who believe; but I 
believe; therefore he died for me, and I shall be saved; 
"for whosoever belicveth on the Son shall not perish, 
but have everlasting life." This is exactly our mode 
of reasoning. Further, no solid peace can be extract- 
ed from that which is insufficient for salvation, which 
avails not, and of itself cannot avail, to prevent dam- 
nation. And such is that universal grace for which 
our opponents contend, a grace which is never effect- 
ually applied to the sinner. What will it avail the 
sinner to know that Christ died for all, while it is cer- 
tain that, without faith, no one will ever become a 
partaker of the fruits of his death? Since faith is not 



ITS EXTENT. 189 



given to all, will lie not be always anxious to know 
whether he belongs to the number of those to whom it 
will be given? May not the same difficulties and scru- 
ples which can be urged against special grace and a 
special atonement, be also urged against a special 
decree of bestowing faith? If it be necessary to solid 
peace of conscience to hold that the mercy of the 
Father is to all and the redemption of the Son for all, 
it is equally necessary to hold that all are actually 
called and all experience the grace of the Spirit. If 
the sinner anxiously say, who knows whether Christ, 
since he has not died for all, had died for me ? may he 
not also say, who knows whether God will give me 
faith, and whether I am of the number of the elect or 
of the reprobate? Besides, all such scruples originate 
from a desire to know what it is not given to man to 
know, at least, not in the way in which these people 
seek to know it. It becomes no mortal to institute a 
scrutiny, a priori, into the secrets of the divine decree, 
relative to election and reprobation. In such inqui- 
ries a man should proceed a posteriori, by examining 
himself, in order to discover whether he has truly 
repented of his sins or not. If he has, he may, and 
Ought to assure himself of the grace of God and his 
own election. If he has not, he ought, without delay, 
to apply himself to the use of the means which God 
has appointed; he ought to hear, and read and ponder 
the Word, and pour out ardent prayers to God for the 



190 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



gift of faith and repentance. Nor can any scruples 
occur on this subject, which our learned opponents are 
not as much bound to remove as we; unless, with the 
Arrninians, they maintain that every man has of him- 
self, through the universal grace of God, sufficient 
power to believe and repent. But those against whom 
we have reasoned in this chapter, have, through the 
grace of God, always thus far professed to reject this 
dogma, as evidently Pelagian. The foundation of con- 
solation, therefore, is to be sought, not from the uni- 
versality of the atonement, but from the universality 
of the promises to all who believe and repent. 

Although the reprobates who do not believe the 
Gospel will be deservedly condemned for their unbe- 
lief, yet it does not follow that they were commanded 
to believe that Christ died for them. There are vari- 
ous kinds of unbelief besides that of not believing 
that the atonement was made for them: such as, not 
believing that Jesus is the Son of God, and the Messiah 
sent by God, but that he was a false prophet and an 
impostor; or the not believing that faith in him is a 
condition necessary to salvation. All these are acts 
of unbelief, and that of a very criminal nature, 
though those who are guilty of them may never have 
thought of Christ's dying for them. That faith which 
Christ so often demands, and for the want of which 
he so severely reprehends the Jews, embraces in itself 
many things wlich must have preceded their belief 



ITS EXTENT. 191 



feat Christ is their Saviour and Redeemer. This, 
indeed, is not a thing- which the Jew was immediately 
to believe. He must first have believed that salva- 
tion is not to be obtained by the law, either in its 
ceremonies or legal works; that it is to be sought 
only in the Messiah promised in the prophets; that 
Jesus of Nazareth is that Messiah; and that all will 
be saved who believe in him. All these general acts 
of faith must have preceded the belief that Christ 
had died for him. Nor can it be replied, that all 
these acts, and, above all, the special, appropriating 
act, are comprehended in the command to believe on 
Christ. As we have said above, though all these are 
commanded, yet it is in a certain order, and the latter 
are not commanded in any other way than as pre- 
ceded by the former; and, on the supposition of the 
first acts not having been performed, it is impossible 
that the latter should be. 

Though God, by the preaching of the Gospel, 
offers Christ to sinners, it does not follow that he 
must have died for all those to whom he is thus of- 
fered, or else the offer cannot be sincere. Because the 
offer is not absolute and simple, but it is made under 
the condition of faith and repentance. It is true, not 
in the way of an accurate historical statement, which, 
whether believed or not, always remains true; but in 
the way of promise, the truth of which is ascertained 
when its condition is complied with, as Camerus de- 



192 TDBRETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. 



clared. It does not say to the sinner, Christ has 
died for you. and you shall be saved on account of 
this death, whether you believe or not. But it in- 
forms him that salvation is procured by the death of 
Christ; that it is for all who believe; and that. by 
embracing it in faith, the sinner will find this to be a 
consolatory truth. From which it follows, that there 
is an indissoluble connection between faith and salva- 
tion; and that all who wish to enjoy Christ and 
his benefits, and who are called by the Gospel, are 
bound to exercise faith. But from this Gospel call, 
we by no means rightly infer that God, by his eternal 
and immutable decree, has destined Christ to be the 
Saviour of all who are called, or that he intended 
that Christ, by his death, should acquire salvation for 
each and every man. For the Gospel which is 
preached to those who are called, does not declare 
that, in the eternal decree of God, it has been or- 
dained that in Christ redemption has been procured 
for each and every man. It rather announces to sin- 
ners a divine command, with a promise annexed, and 
teaches what is the duty of those who wish to be 
made partakers of salvation. We must not suppose 
hence, that such an offer as this is adverse to the 
divine decree. Because, though it does not answer 
to the decree of election, yet it answers to the de- 
cree respecting the means of saving those who are 
elected. In the decree (de personis) of election, God 



ITS EXTENT. 193 



ordained Christ as the Saviour of the elect, and his 
death as the price of their redemption; and deter- 
mined to bestow upon them that faith which should 
enable them to embrace the salvation procured by 
this death. Of this decree, the internal, saving oper- 
ations of the Spirit are the expression and execution. 
In the decree (de rebus) respecting the means of salva- 
tion, God was pleased to connect Christ and faith 
together, and to offer Christ to the hearers of the 
Gospel. The preaching of the Gospel corresponds 
with, and is the execution of, this decree. It is of 
this decree that Christ speaks, when he says, " And 
this is the will of him that sent me, that every one 
who seeth the Son and believeth on him, may have 
everlasting life."* Promises thus conditional, made 
to those who believe and repent, unfold the connec- 
tion which God has established between faith and 
salvation; and make known that those hearers only 
of the Gospel shall be saved who believe and repent. 
They, however, no more show that Christ died for 
all the hearers of the Gospel, than that they shall all 
believe and obtain pardon of sin. From the remis- 
sion which they obtain who believe and repent, it is 
proved that Christ died for them; and it would also 
be true, if others believed and repented, that Christ 
had died for them. But he who argues from this 



194 



TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. 



that Christ has died for all, on the condition that 
they would believe, reasons falsely: for, from hypo- 
thetical premises, he draws an absolute conclusion, 
contrary to all good rules of reasoning. 



Here let me crown this chapter by adding the 
judgment of Deodatus and Tronchin, the celebrated 
theologians dtputed to the Synod of Dort, who, in 

the nanrt of the whole Genevan Church, presented 
this to the venerable Synod, as the common faith of 
the Church, never to be given up. Be Univers. 
Gratia, Cap. II "Christ, out of the mere good 
pleasure of hia Father, was appointed and given to 
be the Mediator and Head of a certain number, who, 
by the election of God, were constituted his mystical 
body."— (Th. 1.) "For these, Christ, fully aware of 
the divine purpose, willed and decreed to die. and to 
add to the infinite merit of his death a special inten- 
tion to render it efficacious."— (Th. 2.) "The uni- 
versal propositions which are found in Scripture, do 
not mean that Christ, according to his Father's pur- 
pose and his own intention, died and made satisfac- j 
tion for all and singular of the race. But they are 
to be restricted to the totality of Christ's body; or 
else to be referred to that feature of the new Cove- 
nant, by which the Son receives for his inheritance all 
nations, without regard to external distinctions: that 



ITS EXTENT. 195 



is, at his pleasure sends the ministry of the Word to 
all tribes and races indiscriminately, and out of them 
gathers his Church. This is the foundation of the 
general call of the Gospel."— (Th. 6.) 



THE END. 



26 > r,v - '' ' ' '■'■ \ 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLO LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 



